IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Mixed summary ruling in hip-hop photographer’s infringement suit against The Source, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Court found Instagram reposts of nine copyrighted portraits constituted direct infringement and rejected fair use; denied summary judgment on willfulness, affiliate’s liability, and DMCA claims due to unresolved issues of registration coverage, intent, control, and scienter.

The federal district court in Manhattan, New York, granted in part and denied in part a hip-hop photographer’s motion for summary judgment in his copyright infringement lawsuit against Source Digital, Inc. (SDI), which operates the online platform for The Source magazine. The court found that SDI unlawfully copied and publicly displayed nine of the plaintiff’s photographs without authorization, rejecting its fair use defense. Two other images were excluded due to insufficient registration evidence. Claims against NorthStar Source Group, LLC (NorthStar), SDI’s affiliated intellectual property licensor, and claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) were left for trial due to unresolved factual disputes concerning NorthStar’s alleged supervisory or contributory role in the infringement and whether SDI acted with the knowledge or intent required to establish liability under the DMCA (Monroe v. Northstar Source Group, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-06220-DEH (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2025)).

Background. The defendant, SDI, is a New York corporation. It publishes digital content focused on hip-hop culture and maintains the Instagram account @thesource. The co-defendant, NorthStar, a Delaware LLC, licenses branding assets to SDI and allegedly advises on copyright policy. The plaintiff, T. Eric Monroe, a professional photographer, is best known for documenting 1990s hip-hop artists.

The 11 photos in question include Monroe’s portraits of artists such as Lauryn Hill, Beyoncé, and D’Angelo. Monroe had registered the works in four batches between 2017 and 2023. Most images were traceable to specific copyright registrations; however, two images—4 and 11—could not be clearly linked to certificates and were excluded from the court's infringement finding. The works displayed Monroe's watermark "@tdoteric” in a red box, though defendants disputed whether it appeared in all versions.

SDI published the images in question on its Instagram account between April 2020 and February 2023, each without Monroe’s authorization. The posts, which allegedly cropped out the watermark, appeared under The Source’s branding and promotional hashtags. Monroe issued two cease-and-desist letters in early 2023. While ten photos were initially targeted, a new post featuring Beyoncé followed the first notice. Monroe sued for copyright infringement, secondary liability, and DMCA violations and moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Direct infringement. The court ruled that Monroe established direct copyright infringement under the three-part test: valid ownership, actual copying, and substantial similarity. Registration was not contested for nine of the eleven images, and access was inferred from public display on Monroe’s website and the prominence of the images in hip-hop culture. A side-by-side comparison revealed that SDI’s reposts were virtually identical to Monroe’s originals, meeting the substantial similarity standard under Michael Grecco Prods., Inc. v. Valuewalk, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

Fair use. SDI’s fair use defense failed under all four statutory factors. First, the court held that the use was non-transformative. Although defendants argued the photos served a documentary and cultural function, the court found that republishing them with hashtags like #sourceclassics did not add new meaning or message. The court cited Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), and Shihab v. Source Digital, Inc., 2024 WL 3461351 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024), both rejecting similar arguments involving unaltered reposts.

Second, the creative nature of the photographs weighed against fair use. SDI conceded the images’ artistic merit but offered no evidence challenging Monroe’s expressive choices in composition, lighting, and subject matter. Third, the court found that SDI copied each work in full and used them for the same illustrative purpose, citing BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Gossip Cop Media, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Finally, the potential market harm was undisputed. Monroe demonstrated that he routinely licenses his works to media companies and that SDI's unlicensed use could undermine his ability to earn fees. Citing Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive, 664 F. Supp. 3d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), and Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998), the court found that the reproduction of full works without a license affected both actual and potential markets.

Willfulness. As to willfulness, the court declined to grant summary judgment. Although Monroe argued that SDI’s cropping of CMI, disregard of its internal copyright policy, and continued posting after notice demonstrated recklessness, the court found factual disputes. SDI asserted that contributors lacked actual knowledge of infringement and obtained the images from third-party sources. Whether this constituted “reckless disregard” under Stokes v. MilkChocolateNYC LLC, 681 F. Supp. 3d 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), required trial.

Vicarious liability. Monroe also pursued vicarious liability against NorthStar. He pointed to contributors using “@thenorthstargroup.biz” emails, copyright policies on NorthStar letterhead, and the involvement of NorthStar-affiliated attorneys in content guidance. The court, however, found triable issues regarding whether NorthStar had the “right and ability to supervise” the infringing activity and derived a “direct financial benefit,” under the standard in Valuewalk.

Contributory. Similarly, contributory infringement claims against NorthStar survived summary judgment. Monroe alleged that NorthStar, through its attorneys, provided guidance to SDI contributors and oversaw third-party content approval. The defendants denied any knowledge of the posts and asserted that advisory roles did not constitute material contribution. Whether NorthStar had actual or constructive knowledge under Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010), could not be resolved without factfinding.

DMCA claims. On the DMCA claims, the court denied summary judgment under both § 1202(a) and (b). Monroe contended that the watermark “@tdoteric" qualified as CMI and was removed from the reposted images. He also claimed SDI falsely attributed authorship through hashtags and account branding. However, the defendants challenged whether the original images contained CMI and whether cropping had occurred at SDI's direction. The court, citing Mango v. BuzzFeed, Inc., 970 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2020), noted that the double scienter requirement for DMCA violations—intentional removal and knowledge of resulting infringement—was not satisfied on the record.

Motion to seal. Separately, Monroe’s motion to seal certain exhibits was denied without prejudice. The court applied the presumption of public access under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), and rejected sealing based solely on confidentiality designations in a protective order.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-06220-DEH.

Judge: Ho, D.

Attorneys: Mackenzie Paladino (Russ August & Kabat) for T. Eric Monroe. Matthew Fontaine Abbott (Wolff & Orenstein, LLC) for NorthStar Solutions Group, LLC and Source Digital, Inc.

Companies: NorthStar Solutions Group, LLC; Source Digital, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews GCNNews