IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: No ‘windfall’ for storm-chasing videographer, (Sep 18, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The video journalist showed no actual damages for Reuters’ infringing use.

A videographer who claimed that Reuters news service purloined his footage of record-breaking winter storms in Buffalo would not be entitled to recover damages in the form of lost licensing fees because he was “looking for a windfall” without the evidence to support his damage estimate, the federal court for Manhattan has held. But the court, while narrowing the videographer’s claim of actual damages, held that he could still pursue a claim for statutory damages based on the media company’s allegedly willful infringement. (Global Weather Productions LLC v. Reuters News & Media LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00507-AS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2025)).

In the words of the court, “[t]his case begins on November 16, 2022.” On that day, video journalist Michael Clement traveled to Buffalo so that he could capture footage of what he anticipated would be a “historic lake effect event.” What unfolded over the next 60 hours, the court recounted was “one of the biggest storms to hit New York in the state’s history.” Clement distributed his videos through his licensing agency, Live Storms Media, and also published some of the videos on his YouTube channel.

Clement’s videos drew attention of the unwanted kind when another videographer, Mark Morgan, uploaded several of the videos to a newsgathering platform named Stringr. That platform then purported to license the videos to Reuters News & Media—which, in turn, posted edited versions of two of them to its own platform Reuters Connect. Meanwhile, yet another news company, Latin American News Agency, or LANA, posted an edited version of another of Clement’s videos—this time, purportedly licensed from a media company called Angel Productions—to the same Reuters Connect platform.

The videographer, acting through his loan-out company Global Weather Productions LLC, sued Reuters as well as its parent company Thomson Reuters for copyright infringement. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment, leading to this opinion.

Thomson Reuters. The court first dismissed the claims against Thomson Reuters, the parent company. Sworn evidence showed, the court noted, that Thomson Reuters did not operate Reuters Connect, was not a party to any of the agreements under which Reuters purported to license the videos, and did not employ any of the persons responsible for producing, editing, or otherwise using the videos. Nor did the videographer “rustle up enough evidence in its favor to create a genuine dispute of material fact” as to Thomson Reuters’ liability. “Ultimately,” the court found, the videographer presented “no evidence” that the parent company was itself involved with the infringement that took place; rather, “the best it has is speculation.”

Actual damages. And even with respect to Reuters itself, the court found, the videographer would not be permitted to pursue a case of actual damages. Strikingly, the court noted, Reuters itself acknowledged that damages of around $10,000 “might be justified based on the evidence in the record.” But the videographer, overplaying his hand, claimed damages of over $7 million based on his purported loss of licensing—a number he calculated by assuming a potential licensing value of $1,000 to 1,275 customers. Yet at his deposition, the court recounted, the videographer testified that “perhaps fifteen or twenty licenses would have been struck, far short of the $1,000-per-video license to 1,275 customers” for the footage. The videographer was “looking for a windfall,” the court noted, “but that’s not what the law allows.” His hopes that “the Court would let it press its luck at trial for a lottery win” would be dashed.

Statutory damages. But while the videographer would be unable to press his case for actual damages, the court found, he could still seek statutory damages—at least as to two of the videos—for Reuters’ allegedly willful infringement. Reuters argued that it reasonably relied on the representations and warranties made by Stringr and LANA. But the videographer pointed to a series of “red flags,” the court found, that should have put Reuters on notice about the infringement—“including that [Reuters] employees had to correct the date and location of the videos Morgan uploaded; that an advertisement played at the end of one of the videos; and that there was audio of someone breathing on the drone footage uploaded.” Moreover, the court noted, Reuters is “in a business that involves considerable interaction with copyright laws.” Drawing all inferences in the videographer’s favor, the court concluded, that was “enough to make summary judgment on the issue of willfulness inappropriate.”

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00507-AS.

Judge: Subramanian, A.

Attorneys: Joshua D. Vera (Sanders Law Group PLLC) for Global Weather Productions, LLC. Katherine Mary Bolger (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Reuters News & Media, Inc., and Thomson Reuters US LLC.

Companies: Global Weather Productions, LLC; Reuters News & Media, Inc.; Thomson Reuters US LLC

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews GCNNews