IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Motion to dismiss photographer’s claims against hip-hop group granted in part, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

A photographer failed to establish the claims of misrepresentation, tortious interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment with respect to the use and distribution of his photographs by the band.

A federal district court in New York City granted a hip-hop group’s motion to dismiss misrepresentation, tortious interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment claims, and declined to dismiss declaratory judgment and providing false copyright management information (CMI) claims. The district court concluded that the photographer’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claim was sufficiently pleaded because the defendants’ knowingly provided false CMI to facilitate an infringement (Green v. Run-DMC Brand, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-03900-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2025)).

Background. On August 11, 2023, Run-DMC, a former hip-hop group, performed live at a hip-hop concert. Ferrin Green, a photographer, was contacted by Eric Blamoville, Jr., a Run-DMC Brand LLC (Run-DMC Brand) representative. In lieu of payment, Green agreed to photograph the Run-DMC performance and the sets of the other performers at the concert. Green took many photos at the concert. While in the backstage area, Blamoville Jr. told Green that before any of the photographs he captured were used in any way other than on Run-DMC’s noncommercial social media, Green would be notified, and be given the opportunity to approve the use. Blamoville Jr. also allegedly stated that the parties would enter into a written agreement concerning the terms and scope of any and all uses of the photographs, including credit and compensation. Based on these representations, Green sent Blamoville Jr., on August 12 or 13, 2023, a Dropbox link with the photographs for the previously agreed upon sole purpose of Run-DMC Brand displaying them on their noncommercial social media. The photographs included CMI by identifying Green as the author of the photographs. However, no one involved with Run-DMC Brand provided Green with the promised contract.

On February 1, 2024, Green attended a screening of the first two episodes of the documentary series “Kings From Queens” (the Docuseries) before the public release, and realized that eight of his photographs had been included in the Docuseries without his knowledge or consent. On February 2, 2024, Green sent Blamoville Jr. and Eric Blamoville Sr. (together, the Blamoville defendants), NBCUniversal Media, LLC (NBCUniversal), Peacock TV LLC (Peacock), Believe Entertainment Group, LLC (Believe Entertainment) (collectively, Movants) notices requesting that they credit the photographs to him and enter into a valid licensing agreement for the photographs. Believe Entertainment initially responded by agreeing that the parties should enter into a licensing agreement for the photographs. NBCUniversal and Run-DMC Brand did not respond to his notices. On February 12, 2024, Believe Entertainment told Green that the photographs were removed from the Docuseries on February 10, 2024. The Docuseries remains on the Peacock streaming platform, albeit without the photographs. Green applied to register the photographs with the U.S. Copyright Office on February 16, 2024, and which are now registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

On February 20, 2024, an attorney for Run-DMC Brand sent Green and his company Know Your Dope L.L.C. (KYD) (collectively, plaintiffs), a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they refrain from any communication with NBCUniversal and Believe Entertainment. The letter also allegedly erroneously claimed that Run-DMC Brand owned all rights in and to the photographs and threatened the plaintiffs with legal action.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Movants were unjustly enriched from their unauthorized use and distribution of the photographs and filed an action alleging seven claims: (1) copyright infringement; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) providing false CMI; (4) misrepresentation; (5) tortious interference with economic relations; (6) breach of contract; and (7) unjust enrichment. The Movants moved to partially dismiss five of the seven claims against them for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), preemption by the Copyright Act of 1976, and for duplicative claims.

Copyright Act preemption. The Movants argued that the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. The plaintiffs argued that they only sought a declaratory judgment as to the authorship of the photogrnphs, and specifically disclaimed that they sought a declaration concerning the right to reproduce, create derivative works, distribute, or publicly performm and display the photographs. Thus, the general scope prong of the preemption analysis was not satisfied. Accordingly, the Movants’ request to dismiss the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim was denied.

The plaintiffs also pleaded an unjust enrichment claim, a common law cause of action, against Run-DMC and the Blamoville defendants. The Movants contended that the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim was preempted by the Copyright Act and was duplicative of the breach of contract claim. The plaintiffs alleged that Movants asserted rights to license, reproduce, display, and distribute the photographs and profited from such unauthorized uses. These are core rights governed by the Copyright Act. Thus, the subject matter prong of the preemption test was satisfied because it fell within the ambit of one of the categories of copyrightable works. The general scope prong was also satisfied because the claim involved acts of reproduction, adaptation, performance, distribution or display and was not qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim was preempted by the Copyright Act and was therefore dismissed.

Providing false CMI. The district court noted that Blamoville Sr. falsely claimed that he was the author of Green’s photographs and provided them to NBCUniversal, Peacock, and Believe Entertainment for the Docuseries even though Green had not licensed or authorized any of the Movants to publish, reproduce, display, or distribute the photographs in the Docuseries. Further, even after Green registered the photographs with the U.S. Copyright Office, the district court found that Run-DMC still claimed that it owned all rights in and to the photographs and threatened the plaintiffs with legal action. Based on these facts, the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the Movants altered and distributed CMI that was false. Accordingly, the Movants motion to dismiss the plaintiffs claim for providing false CMI was denied.

Misrepresentation. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations concerned the Movants failure to fulfil promises that were squarely contractual in nature namely, to deliver a written agreement, to restrict use of the photographs, and to negotiate terms before any broader use. The district court noted that plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claim merely repackaged their breach of contract allegations and could not stand as an independent tort claim. Accordingly, the misrepresentation claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim and therefore dismissed.

Tortious interference with economic relations. The plaintiffs argued that Run-DMC and the Blamoville defendants tortiously interfered with their relationship with Believe Entertainment. The Movants contended that the claim had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead that they had a business relationship with Believe Entertainment, or even if it did, that Movants acted out of malice or used improper means. The district court noted that the complaint alleged that Green’s photographs were included in the Docuseries without his knowledge or consent, and that although Believe Entertainment initially suggested that the parties enter into a licensing agreement for the photographs, it eventually removed them from the Docuseries. The complaint also conclusorily alleged that the agreement was not reached because Blamoville Sr. interfered with the negotiations, without providing any additional facts. However, the district court found that the Blamoville defendants did not amount to a crime or an independent tort to satisfy the third element of a tortious interference claim, nor did the plaintiffs allege that the economic pressure they faced was extreme or unfair. Accordingly, the Movants’ request to dismiss the plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with economic relations was granted.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-03900-ER.

Judge: Ramos, E.

Attorneys: Laura Castner (Mazzola Lindstrom LLP) for Ferrin Green. Frank Christopher Salzano (Salzano Ettinger & Lampert LLP) for Run-DMC Brand, LLC.

Companies: Run-DMC Brand LLC; NBCUniiversal Media, LLC; Peacock TV LLC; Believe Entertainment Group, LLC.; Know Your Dope L.L.C.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews