Cancian v. Hannabass and Rowe, Inc et al, No. 7:2018cv00283 - Document 59 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 07/19/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DISX CG JRT AT RG NOKE,VA FILED JUL 1! 2219 IN T H E U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT COU RT FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA ROAN O V D IW SIO N UL #: a UDLEM CLERK PU A LLE SAN D RO CAN CIAN , Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:18-cv-00283 H AN N M ASS AN D R OW E ,LTD ., and LIN D SAY M ICH E LLE STIN SO N , D efendants. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefU.S.DistrictJudge M EM O M N D U M O PIN ION l Tllis m atter com es before the court on a nunaber of naodons fzed by defendants HannabassandRowe,Ltd.rfl-lannabass's)andLindsayMichelleSdnson rfénson7l.'I'hefust these is Hannabass and Stinson's (collectively, Tfdefendants') motion for slnmmary judgment,flled on June 19,2019.ECF No.48.PlaintiffAllesandto Cancian rfcancian'') responded to tlnismotion onJuly 8,2019.ECF No.50.Defendantsthen ftled amodon to sttike this response on June 992019,ECF No.51,and a supplementalmotion argaing addiéonalgrounds to strike Cancian'sresponse on June 10,2019,ECF No.52.Cancian Cancian v. Hannabass and Rowe, Inc et al responded to.130th motionsto strike onJuly 12,2019.ECF No.54.DefendantsrepEed to Doc. 59 Cancian'sbriefin opposiéon to themotion onluly12,2019.ECF No.54. For the reasons ardculated below,the cotzrtnow D EN IE S defendants'm odons to stzike,ECF Nos.51& 52,andDENIESdefendants'modon forsummaryjudgment,ECF N o.48. Dockets.Justia.com 1. CanciantookthephotographthatwouldcometobetitledTfspeedingFall''rfspeeding Fa11''orffthephoto') onluly11,2011.ECF No.49-1,at1.N' Vhiletheoriginalphotowastaken during the slzm m er,Cancian altered the colorsoftheleaveson the treeson either sideofthe road so thatthephoto appeared to depicta roadway in the fall,as the leavesw ere changing. 1d.Cancian also used a Tfsm oothing effect''on theroad.ld.Cancian'spurpose in taking the photo was ardsdc expression.ECF N o.49-8,at 1.H e posted the photo on the website ffwwm soopx.com ,'' a w ebsite that tTprovides exposure and licensing opportazrlities to photographersy''som etim ein M azch of2012.Ld= The photo was registered with the United . StatesCopyrightO ffice on M ay 5,2017.1 Stinson isthesoleownerand principalofStinson CommunicationsLLC rfstinson Communicaéons'),a Virginia limited liability company.ECF No.41-11, at 1.Sénson Cotnmunicaéons'prim ary businessis to provide m arkedng and website developm ent to its customers.J-I. L Hannabassisa corporadon headquartered in Roanoke,Virginia and in the businessofauto body repair.ECF N o.16,at1;ECF N o.49-12,at1.H annabasscontracted with Sdnson Com m unicationsto develop and m aintain a website provicling inform ation on the serdces H annabass provides,its houzs of operadon,and certain info= ationalnt-ficles. ECF N o.49-12,at 1-2.Sdnson owns the licensing rights to num etous stock photographs through avariety ofstock photograph com panies.ECF N o.49-11,at1-2.In creating a page on H annabass'websiteforan articleon safedrivingin fallw eather,Stinson selected ffspeeding Fall':from thesephotosbecauseitappeared to depictaroadwayin auttzmn.Ldx 1ffspeeding Fall''holdsthe CopytightRegistration N um berVA 2-062-573.ECF N o.49-20,at1. 2 O n February 7, 2017, Stinson w as notzed by counsel that Cancian owned the çfspeeding Fa1P'photo and thatuse of thatphoto was prohibited.ECF N o.49-11.Sdnson rem oved the photo the sam e day shew as so alerted.JILCancian hled suitonJune20,2018, -. pursuing dam agesforStinson'sand H annabass'infringem ent.ECF N o.1. 1I- Pkusuantto FederalRuleofCivilProcedure56(a),thecourtmustffgrantsummary judgmentifthembvantshowsthatthereisno genténedisputeasto anymaterialfactand the movantisenétledtojudgmentasamatteroflam ''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);seeCelotexCo .v. Catrett,477 U.S.317,322 (1986) .;Glnn v.EDO Co .,710 F.3d 209,213 (4th Cir.2013). W hen m aldng this detetvninaéon, the court should consider ffthe pleadings, deposidons, answersto intetrogatories,and adnaissionson Hle,togetherwith ...ganyjaffidavits''flled by the parties.Celotex,477 U .S.at 322.W hether a fact is m aterialdepends on the relevant substandvelaw.Anderson v.Liber Lobb lnc.,477 U.S.242,248 (1986).ffonly disputes over facts thatnaightaffectthe outcom e of the stzitunder the governing 1aw willpropetly precludetheentry ofsummaryjudgment.Factualdisputesthatareitrelevantorunnecessary willnotbe counted.''Id.(citation onlitted).The moving pazty beazs the iniéalburden of dem onstraéng the absenceofa genuineissue ofm aterialfact.See Celotex,477 U .S.at323.If thatburden hasbeen m et,the non-m oving party m ustthen com e forward and establish the specilk m aterialfactsin isputeto survivesummaryjudgm ent.M atsuslaitaElec.Indus.Co.v. Zenith Radio Co .,475U.S.574,586-87 (1986). ln deterzniningwhetherajenplineissueofmaterialfactexists,thecourtviewsthefacts and drawsallreasonableinferencesin thelkhtmostfavorableto thenon-moving party. 3 Czl yr-m,710F.3dat213 (citingBondsv.Leavitt,629F.3d369,380 (4th Cit.2011)).lndeed, Tfgiltis an faxiom thatin nlling on a motion for summary judgment,the evidence of the nonmovantis to be believed,and alljusdhable inferencesare to be drawn in his favor.''' McAidaids lnc.v.Iiimberl-clark Co .No.13-2044,2014 WL 2871492,at*1(4t.h Cir. June25,2014)(internalalteration omitted)(citingTolan v.Cotton,1à4 S.Ct.1861,1863 t (2014)(percuriaml).Moreover,ftgclredibilitydete= inations,theweiglzing oftheevidence, andthedrawingoflegitimateinferencesfzom thefactsarejutyfuncéons,notthoseofajudge ''A ndetson,477 U.S.at255.H ow ever,'the non-m oving party ffm ust setforth specific . . . . facts thatgo beyond the fm ere existence ofa scintilla ofevidence.'''G1 nn,710 F.3d at213 (quotingAnderson,477.U.S.at252).lnstead,thenon-movingpartymustshow thatTfthereis suffkientevidencefavoringthenonmovingpartyforajurytoreturn averdictforthatparty.'' Res.BanksharesCor .v.St.PaulMerc lns.Co.,407F.3d631,635(4thCir.2005)(quoting Xnderson,477 U.S.at249).(Tln otherwords,to grantsummary judgmentthe gcqourtmust deterrninethatnoreasonablejut'ycouldfindforthenonmovingpartyontheevidencebefore it.':M ossv.PazksCo .,985F.2d736,738(4thCir.1993)(citingPeriniCo .v.PeriniConst. Inc.,915F.2d 121,124(4thCir.1990)). 111. A s a thteshold m atter,the court shalladdress two m odons by defendants to sttike Cancian'smem orandum inopposidon to themotion forsummaryjudgment.ECF Nos.51& 52.D efendantspointoutin theirflrstm odon to stzike thattlaey tim ely flled theitm otion for summaryjudgmentonJune19,2019,in accordancewith thedeadlinessetby theScheduling Order.ECF No.48.Cancian,on theotherhand,f' Jledlaisresponseto tlaismodon onJuly 8, 4 2019,iève daysaftettheJuly3 deadlineto respond to defendants'motion.ECF No.50. D efendantsargtze that,in lightofCancian'stardy gling,the éolzrtshould strike hisresponse to them otion.ECF N o.51. W hile the courtapplaudsdefendants'tim elinessand discotztagesCancian'stardiness,a m odon to sttike is (<a draséc zem edy w lùch is disfavored by the coutts and infrequently ' / gzanted.'' Clark v.Milam.152 F.R.D. 66,70 (S.D.W .Va.1993).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure6(b)givesthecourtdiscretionto extendadeadlineafteritspassageupon ashowing ofE<excusableneglect'';Tfgeqxcusableneglectisnoteasilydemonstrated,norwasitintended to be ...theburden ofdem onstzating excusabilitylieswith the party seeking the extension and a m ere concession ofpalpable oversightoz adrninistrative failure generally has been held to fallshortofthe necessary showing ...77Thom son v.E.I.D upontde N em outs& Co.,76 F.3d 530,534(4thCir.1995)(internalcitadonsomitted).ln consideringwhetherapartyhas presented excusable neglect,the couttmust consider four elements:(1) ffthe danger of prejucliceto gthenon-movingpartyjy''(2)Kfthelengthofthedelayanditspotentialimpacton juclicialproceeclingsy''(3)ffthereasonforthedelay,incluclihgwhethezitwasinthereasonable controlofthemovant,and':(4)ffwhethezthemovantactedingood faith.''PioneerInv.Servs. v.BrtznswickAssocs.Ltd.P'shi,507U.S.380,395(1993). Cancian'sprofessed excuse,thatthe reporting com pany hired to produce a transcript of two key depositions failed to do so despite repeated entteaties,see ECF N o.50-2,does pezhapsfallinto the category offfadnainistrative failurey''butthe courtseesno reason thata five-day delay willprejudice defendants.Defendants themselves do not atgue they have suffered prejudice,except perhaps that the courtwill now consider Cancian's late-flled 5 arguments- a clearlyinsufhcientpzofferofprejudice.SeeW alton v.BakerHu hesOilfield O erations Inc.,No.1:16cv141,2017 WL 5196643,at *4 (N.D.W .Va.Nov.9,2017) ' rfgAjlthoughW alton arguesthatheisprejudiced bythelate-fied response,heprovidesno ' q basis for this atgum ent other than the possibility thatthe Court* 1heed its contenéons (citation omitted).W eretlkisalonesufficient,everylate-fûed briefwould resultin ptejudice and consideraéon ofthefactorwouldbef'utile.''l. In their supplem ental m otion to strike,defendants argue that plaintifps counsel's explanaéon forhislate flling,subm itted in a sworn declaraéon accom panying hisresponse,is false.ECF N o.52.CounselforCancian statesin hisdeclaraéon thathem aderepeated requests for the deposidon transcripts butdid not heat back untilafter the deadline to respond to defendants'm oéon.ECF N o.50-2.D efendantsassertin.theitsupplem entalm otion to strike thatcoupselfor'Cancian in factonly made onerequest,onJuly 3,2019.ECF No.52,at2. D efendantsinclude a copy ofthe em ailed requestwith tlnism odon and encourage the court togiveKftheveracityofadeclaration madebyan attorneyunderpenaltyofperjury,ppecularly atthe ekpense ofa third party,...ftzrthet scrtztiny.''JA The courtcan only assume that defendants'counselisim plying alack ofgood faith on the partofplaintiff'scounsel. In responding, counsel for Cancian submits screenshots off his cellphone, docum enéng ntunezous attem pts to contact the recozcling com pany by phone on several differentdays,aswellasthe previously submitted em ails.ECF N o.53-2.The cotzrtwillthus ignore any aspersionsdefendants'counselattem ptsto cast.Even ifthe courtagreesthatthe tlnitd ofthe above elements (the reason forthe delay and whetheritwasin thereasonable 6 controlofthemovant)militatestowardsgranting themotion to strike,the otherthree sway the courtto considerCancian'sresponse.ThecotzrtwillD EN Y the m odonsto saike. Cancian'sftrstexhibitin suppoztofhisresponsetothemotion forsummaryjudgment, how evet,gives the court pause.See ECF N o.50-1.In lieu of the deposition transcripts Cancian was unable to obtain,Cancian's counseloffezs handwritten notes taken during the depositions and a sworn declaration explaining the nature of these.ECF N o.50-2.In this declaration,counselalso states that,should itbecom e necessal-y,he will testify to whatthe deponentssaid.Id.at1. ffA deposidon upon ozalexam inaéon is a valuable discoverytoolby wllich a wittless givesoraltestim ony underoath.''Steven S.G ensler,FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Rules and Commenta ,Rule 30 (2019).W lzile deponentsmake theitstatementsunder oath,the attorney doing the deposing,and perhaps taldng n 'otes as he does so,is under no such obligationtojotdownonlytheunvarnishedtruth.Courtsdonotrelyuponunsworn,unsigned witnessstatementsindecidingmoéonsforsummaryjudgment.Cetinav.NewboldSelvs.,No. CA 6:12-2222-7M C,2013W L5596921,at*7(D.S.C.Oct.11,2013)(<fTheunsworn,unsigned witness statem ents that the N ewbold D efendants attached to theit m otion for sum m ary judgment(manywhichincludehandwdttennotes)havenotbeen subnnittedunderoath,and thustheCotzrtwillnotrelyon them inmakingitssummaryjudgmentdetermination.').The cotutthus* 11notconsiderCancian'sfastexhibitsubmitted wit. h histesponsein opposition to themotion fotsummaryjudgment,ECF N o.50-1,in decidingthism odon. IV. Defendantsmake fourargumentsita favorofsumma' ryjudgment:(1)thatSdnson cannot be held individually liable for copyright infzingem ent com m itted by Sdnson Communicaéons,LLC;(2) thatHannabasscannotbe held vicariously liable forcopyright infringementcommittedbySdnsonCommunications;(3)thattheinfringementinthiscaseis excused bytlaefaituse docttine;and (4)thatCancian cannotsustain hiscasebecausehehaj m ade no showing ofdam ages.The courtwilladdresseach arpzm entindividually. D efendants argue thatSdnson cannotbe held individually liable for any infringem ent clnim comm itted by Stinson Com m unicaéons, a lim ited liability com pany that ordinarily shieldsitsm em bersand officersfrom personalliability,because Cancian Tfhasno knowledge of whethet Sénson Com m unications downloaded the photo without a w aterm ark or any identifying signattzre''and hasffno evidencethatStinsonwasthedom inantinfluenceatSénson Com m ui cadonsLLC orthatStinson detetm ined policy thatresulted in the infringem ent.'' ECF N o.49,at 8.D efendants concede that (Tstinson selected the photograph for use by Stinson Com m unicadonsLLC to postto theH & R w ebsite,''butargue thatffthisfactaloneis notsufficientto establish liability.''Id.On these grounds,defendants argue that Stinson is . shielded as an individualfrom liability foz what Se son Com m ul cations clid as a lim ited liability enéty.ld. The Copyright Act,as intem reted by the courts, extendspetsonal liability for the acdonsofcom oludonsand LLCSundercertzn circumstances.See 17 U.S.C.A.j 501(a-b) (2002)(ffAnyonewho violatesanyoftheexclusiverightsofthecopytightownetasptovided by secdons106 thtough 122 ...isan infringer ofthe copyright....The legalorbenehcial 8 ow ner of an exclusive right under a copyright is enétled ...to instittzte an action for an infringement ..');UniversalFurtziture Int'l,Inc.v.Frankel,835 F.Supp.2d 35,50 (M.D.N.C.2011),aff'd,538 F.App'x 267 (4th Cir.2013) (imposing personalliability on a comorateofficerforcopyrightinfringementbythecom oration).Jointand severalliabilityfor acom orate officetin the contextofcopyrightinftingem entw111lie dfwhezethe officerwasthe dominantinfluence in the corporation,and detetm ined the policies which resulted in the infringem ent.':Broad M usic lnc.v.It'sAm oreCo .,N o.3:08CV570,2009 W L 1886038,at *5(M .D.Pa.June30,2009)(citingSailorMusicv.MZ KaiofConcotd.lnc.,640F.Supp. 629,634l(D.N.H.1984).Defendantscontend thatnotenough hasbeen produced to show thatSénson eitherwasffthedorninantinfluence''atSdnson Com m unicationsorffdeterm ined thepoliciesthatresulted in theinfringem ent.'?E CF N o.49,at8.Thecourtdisagzees.Sénson is the ow ner,principal,and sole m em berofStinson Com m unicadons.ECF N o.49-11,at1. Ilefendants adnût daat she Personally selected the Kfspeeding Fall'' photo for use on H annabass'w ebsite.Id.Tlnison itsown isenough to create a quesdon ofm aterialfactasto whetherStinson wasthedonainantinfluence athercom pany and whethershe detev ined the policiesthatresulted in the alleged infringem ent. V. D efendanfsargue thatH annabasshad no ffinvolvem entin thedesign orconstruction'' of the H annabass website. ECF N o. 49, at 6. They argue that, because Sénson Communicationswashired asanindependentcontractor(ratherthan an employee)to design and btzild H annabass'website,itwassolelyresponsible fozthe contentand photo selecéon of 9 thatwebsiteand itsactionscannotbeimputed to Hannabass.LdaDefendantsthusazguethat Cancian cannothold H annabassliable fortheuseofffspeeding Fall.''1d. O n thecontrary,thereisno doubtthat,in certain citcmnstances,aperson orendtycan be found to have infringed a copyrightbased on the acts ofanother.See M etro-G old n- M aerStazdios lnc.v.Grokster Ltd.,545U.S.913 (2005)(recognizing secbndaryliability ' under copyrightact);Sony Corp.v.UniversalCity Studios,Inc.,464 U.S.417,435 (1984) (nodng existence ofvicariousliability in the copyrightcontextdespite absence ofexpress language in copyrightstattzte).One soutce ofsuch secondary liability isvicarious liability, wllich,in the contextofcopyzightinfringem ent,willliewherea defendantpossessesboth the rightand ability to supervisetheinfringing acévityand an obviousand HirectEnancialintezest in the exploited copyrighted m aterials.N elson Salabes Inc.v.M ornin side D evelo m ent, LLC,284F.3d 505,513 (4th Cit.2002).SeealsoUniversalFurniturelntern,835F.Supp.2d a * at50 Soldingthattheoffkerofacloselyheldcompanythatwasthejudgmentdebtorforan ' $11rnillion award fordamagesfortheinfringementofacopyrightholder'sFlArnituredesigns w asvicariously liable forthe com pany'sinfringem entbecause the officerhad b0th the ability to superdse the distribution of the furniture and a financial interest in exploidng the copyrighted furriitnare).Cridcally,afflack ofknowledge that the primary actor is actually engaged in infdnging acdvityisnotadefense'?where130th oftheaboveelem entsaresatisfied. EM 1A rilM usic Inc.v.W llite,618F.Supp.2d 497,507 (E.D .Va.M ay 22,2009)(holding thata defendantwho owned and.operated the establislnm entwhere copyrightinfringem ent took placewasvicariouslyliableforthatinfringement). D ennis H oldten, president and owner of H annabass,stated in his declaraéon in supportofsummaryjudgmentthatHannabasshired Stinson Communicationsto createits com m ercialwebsite.ECF N o.49-12,at 1.W hether hiàed as an em ployee or independent conttactor,the 1aw on thisissueiscleatthatsuch arelationship creates atleasta questiop of factasto the rightand ability ofH annabassto supervise theczeation ofitsown website.See EM IA ri1M usic,618 F.Supp.2d at507.Further,because T'Speeding Fall''was posted on H annabass'conunercialwebsite,sufficientevidenceofan obviousand Hirectfinancialinterest in thisinfringementhasbeen produced such thatstzmmaryjudgmentisinappzopriate.The courtD EN IE S defendants'm otion to disrnissHannabassasadefendantfrom thiscase. W . N ext,defendantsassertthey are notliable forcopyrightinfringem entbecause the use of<fspeeding Fall':on H annabass'websiteconstim ted fairuse.ECF N o.49,at10.KfFrom the infancy of copyrightprotection,som e opporttznity for fair use ofcopyrighted m aterials has been thoughtnecessary to fulfillcopyright's very pum ose,fgtlo promote the Progress of ScienceandusefulArts....'77Cam bellv.Acuff-lkoseMusic lnc.,510 U.S.569,575 (1994) (citingU.S.Const.,Art.1,j8,cl.8).Thedocttineoffaituseisan affirmativedefenseandffan equitableruleofreason,w léch pennitscourtsto avoidrigidapplication ofthecopyrightstatute when,on occasion,itw ould stifle the very creativity wlaich that1aw is designed to fosten'' Stexvartv.Abend,495U.S.207,236 (1990).A findingoffairuseisacompletedefenseto an infringementclaim.Bouchatv.BaltimoreRavensLtd.P'tship,737 F.3d 932,937 (4th Cir. 2013).Faituseisnow codifiedinSection 107oftheCopyrightAct,which providesinrelevant Patt 11 rflhe fair use of a copyrkhted work,including such use by reproduction in copies .. . , foz purposes such as criticism , com m ent,newsreporting,teaching ...,scholarship,orresearch, isnotan infdngem entofcopyright.In determining whether the use m ade ofawork in any particularcaseisa fairusethe factors to be considered shallinclude- (1) the purpose and céazacter of the use, including w hether such use is of a com m ercial natbue or is for nonprofiteducationalpup oses; (2)tlnenatureofthecopyrightedwork; (3)theamountand substantialityoftheportion usedin relation to thecopyrighted work asawhole;and (4)theeffectoftheuseupon thepotentialmarketforor value ofthe copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C.j107.Fairuseanalysismustbeconducted on aTfçase-by-case''basis;thestataztory factorsmay notfibe tzeated in isolationy''butmusttTgajll. be explored,and the results weighed together,in lightofthe purposesofcopytight.''Cam bell,510 U .S.at577-78.The courtm ustultim ately detetrninewhethera use isthe type Jdthatfurthersthe essentialgoalof copyright1aw and should be excused from liability forinfringem ent.''Estate ofSnnith v.Cash MonevRecords Inc.,253F.Supp.3d737,749(S.D.N.Y.2017).Thecourtthusshallgo factor by factorand apply each to the factsathand. A. The flrstfactorofthe fairuse doctrine inquiresinto the purpose and chatacterofthe infringing useand asksifitTtaddssom ething new ,with a futtherpum oseordifferentcharacter, alteling thefrstwitlnnew exptession,m eaning,orm essage.''Cam bell,510 U .S.at579.This requiresa t' w o-partinqtziry;flrst,thecourtm ustaskiftheuseistransform aéve,then thecourt asksto whatextentthe use serves a com m ercialpurpose.Id.at578.The essendaltlntnzstof the transform ativeinqlziry isto determ ine whetheztlze use rendersthe work originalin som e 12 way,otwhethetitffmetely fsupetsedegsjthe objects'ofthe originalcreaéon.''Id.at579 (alteraéoninoziginal)(quotingFolsom v.Marsh,9F.Cas.34. 2,348(C.C.D.Mass1841).To be tzansform ative,a use m ustdo ffsom çthing m ore than repackage orrepublish the original copyrightedwork.''AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.HathiTrust,755F.3d87,96(2dCir.2014).lnstead, theusem usteitheraltetozadd som ething to thewozk,ozin lieu oftlais,tfem ploy the quoted m atterin a differentm anner orfora differentpum ose from the original,thustransfozming , it.''A.V.exrel.Vanderh ev.iparadi s LLC,562 F.3d 630,638 (4th Cit.2009)(internal citaéonsomitted). ln arguing that their use of the photo w as transform ative,defendants struggle to distinguish thiscaseftom Brammerv.ViolentHuesProds.,'922F.3d255(4th Cir.2019).The plaintiff in Bram m er was a cornm ercial photographer w ho brought suit against a f11r14 ptoduction com pany thathad posted a photo he had taken on the Internet.1d.at261.The photo in queséon,ffAdam sM ozgan atN ight,''depicted ffa busy streetduring the evening in theAdam sM organ neighborhood''ofW ashington,D .C.,ffwith thevehiclettafficrendered as red and white light trails.''J -i The film production company found the photo thtough a . G oogle search and used iton itswebsite prom oting the N orthern VirginialnternationalFilm and M usic Festival;the photo wasused on a pagethathighlighted varioustourism attzactions around tlaeW aslaington m etropolitan area ofA dam sM organ.Lds . The f5lm production com pany argued thatthe use offfAdam sM organ atN ight''was transfol-m athre because ofthe new and differentcontext- the photo wasplaced beside alist of tourist attractions. Bram m er, 922 F.3d at 263-64.The court observed that, wlûle a wholesalereproduction ofacopyrightedw ork m ay betransform ativewhen thework isplaced 13 in a new contextto serve a new putpose,the secondaty use ffst.illm ust generate a societal benefitby im buing the oziginalwith new funciion orm eaninp''1d.at263.Afternoting that, generally spealdng,courtsoften find contextualchangessufficiently ttansform ativein the two specihcscenariosoftechnologicaluseand docum ental'y use,thecouttfound thatneithetsuch scenazio appûed: The copying here doesnotfallinto eitherofthese categories ... . l nstead,Violent Hues'sole cleim to transform ation is thatits secondaryuseofthePhoto provided f11r1:festivalattendee' swit.h ffinform ation''regardingAdam sM organ.Butsuch ausedoesnot necessarilycreateanew function orm eaningthatexpandshllm an thought; if this w ere so, virttzally all illusttadve uses of photography w ould qualify as tzansform adve. ' , J-1. L at264.After exarhining the rem aining elem entsofthe fairuse doctrine,the courtfound the f5lm production com pany had failed to show thatthe use offfAdam s M organ atN ight'' had bçen faituse.1d.at269. Bram m er is clearly and inescapably analogous to the case at hand,but defendants attem ptto distinglzish these factsbyargaing thattheBram m erdefendantcopied theplaintiff's photo with theintention ofidendfying thesam elocadon captured by thephoto in prom odng a film festival,while here,Sénson did not use ffspeeding Fall''because of the locaéon it depicted,orindeed becauseshewished to identifyany pazticularlocation.ECF N o.49,at11- 12.N eitherdid Stinson use thephoto foritsartisdcvalue'.Id.D efendantscontend: Stinson'susedoesnothighlightanyartisticorexpressivecontent. W ith al1due respect to plainéff,any picture outof the 14,000 im ages listed in Exhibits 16 and 17 would have served Sdnson Com m unicadons'needs. The photo w asused forinfotm adonalpum osesin an article on safe driving.The text accom panying the photo discusses safe 14 driving tips and hazards of which to be aware.This gives the viewera new m eaning and contextin which to view the photo. 1d. at 12.D efendants also point out that the photo w as reduced in size to fit with the accom panying textand thataporéon ofthephoto wasused asapageheadeion <TFa1lD riving Tipsy''containing the H annabass'logo.1d.at14-15.W hile adrnitting thatthis goesm ore to thethird elem entoffaizusethan thefast,defendantsarguethisalso show sthe transform adve natbueoftheJzse offfspeedingFall.''Id. Thecourtfindslittle,ifany,transform advevaluein theuseofthephoto on H annabass' w ebsite.The context ofthe use,placem ent above and nextto an atticle aboutsafe driving during the fall,m ay alterthe m eaning ofthe photo som ew hat.See ECF N o.49-19,t 1.An individualreading this article would view ffspeeding Fall''as a reference to the fallseason rather than as an artistic work.Addidonally,nothing about the safe driving dps offered encouzagesa readerto note the photo-editing techniquesapplied to Kfspeeding Fall.7'A llthe sam e,Cancian took apicture ofa roadway surrounded by a forestand intendonaEy altered it to look like a fall scene zather than a sum m er scene- though the atésdc expzession and technical proficiency m eant little to Sdnson when she posted the photo on Hannabass' website,thephoto waschosen becauseitdepictsexactlywhatCancian intended itto- aroad in auttzm n.O neassum esthatanyindividualviewing Cancian'sphoto in gsy contextwould see . itas a zoad in autum n.Accompanying the photo with an article on dtiving safety doesn't change thatinterpretation. Sénson's use of the photo is neither a technological funcdorè nor a docum entary function.In the technologicalfuncdon situation,as described by the courtin Bram m er,the 15 ftm céon of the copied wozk is indiffetent to any exptessive aspect.922 F.3d at 264,Fot exam ple,courtshave found the totalreproduçtion ofsm dentessaysforaplagiarism detecéon serdce ttansform ative because the database served an dfentirely different f'uncdon thatwas unrelated to the expressive content of those essays.''V anderh e, 562 F.3d at 639.In the docum entary function situation,the use ofthe copied work setves a docum entary purpose and Tfm ay be im portantto the accuzate representadon oflzistoricalevents.''Bram m er,922 F.3d at264.W hilethedoctunentary f'unction m ay com eclosestto explaining Stinson'suse of Cancian'sphoto,any such algum entclearly fallsquite short.ffspeeding Fall''atgtzably served a zepresentational,infotvnadve putpose,but w as certainly far from necessary to provide Estoricalaccuracy(oraccuracyofanyltind)tothearticleon safedrivingin thefall.Thecotut thusconcludesthatthe use ofTfspeecling Fa1P'isnottransform ative.This conclusion weighs againsta fincling offairuse. A szegardsthe second partoftlliselem ent'sanalysis,the courtfindsthatthe useofthe . photo was only som ewhat com m ercial, despite the fact that the photo was used on a com m ercialwebsite.N eitherSdnson norH annabasswasattem pdng to sellthe photograph, adverHse photogzaphic ediHng techrziques,prom ote tourism ,oj:even draw attenéon to the photo.See ECF No.49-19 (a screenshotofthe Hannabass'webpage d<Fal1Driving Tips'). A ndwhilecertainlyanythingposted on H annabass'w ebsitecould beterm ed com m ercial,since the websiteitselfis com m ercial,the photo'suse on this pardcularpage doesn'tappearto be the prom otion of H annabass, but the delivery of several safety dps. See Ld.. o D efendants contend that,to the exyentthe use ofthe photo was com m ercial,the com m ercialgain has been so fftenuous''thatneitherpartyisableto identify a financialbenefit.ECF N o.49,at13. 16 Kfef'hecruxoftheprofh/nonprofitdiséncéonisnotwhetherthesolemoéveoftheuse ism onetarygain butwhethertheuserstandsto proftfrom theexploitadon ofthecopyzighted m atedalwithoutpaying the custom ary price.''H a et & Row Publishers Inc.v.N ation Ente. r rises, 471 539, 562 (1985). Defendants have established that Sénson Com m unicadonshad the Ecense to use sevezalstock photos depicdng fallzoadway.scenes. E CF N o. 49-11, at 1. D efendants have also presented evidence showing that Sdnson rrlistakenly selected thisphoto;shecould haveselected anynum berofphotosthatwould have servedherneedsand forwhich sheownedlicenses.J-l. Lat2.Shehad noneed ofthisphotoin particularand,with so m any otheropéons,stood to gain nothing from usingitwithoutpaying fora license.Cancian offersabsolutely no evidence tebutting tllis. H aving found that the use oftfspeeding Fall''wasnottransform adve,buywas only som ewhatcom m ercial,the courtfindsthatthe flrstfactorw eighsagainstthe conclusion that defendants'useofthephoto w asfairuse. B. The second factorofthe fairusedoctrinelooksto thenatareofthecopyrighted w ork. 17U.S.C.j 107(2).Cancian dejcribeshisphoto asacreativework;thisthereforeplacesthe photo Kfcloserto the core ofworksptotected bytheCopyrightA ct.''Bouchat,737 F.3d at943 (internalquotaéon marksonlitted).lf,however,ffthedisputeduseofthecopyrightedwotkis notrelated to itsm ode ofexpression butrather to itsllistoricalfacts,then the creadve nattzre ofthework''mattersfarlessthan itotherwisewould.Vanderh e,562 F.3d at640 (internal quotation mazisonlitted).Defendantsargtzed thatSénson choseffspeeding Fall''purelyasa facttzaldepiction ofa road in the fall.ECF N o.49,at 16.For thatreason,any num ber of photos could have served the sam e pup ose.The photo was intended to serve putely as a reference to a season.The use ofthe photo isthusurlrelated to any creadve decisionsm ade by Cancian in taking and editing thephoto.The courtûndsthatthe second factorw eighsin favorofa finding offairuse. C. The third factot examines the ffam ount'' and Tdsubstantiality'' of the use of the copyrighted work.17 U.S.C.j107(3).Here,thecourtconsidersfactorssuch aswhetherthe photo w asreproduced in itsentirety orin part,orwhethetthephoto w asenlarged orshmm k. Sundemanv.Sea'a Soc' lnc.,142F.3d194,205(4thCir.1998).W hilethephotowasreduced to approxim ately onefoutth thesize oftheorigm ' al,itwasreproduced in itsentitety,and then wasreproduced again- aporéon ofthe photo wasused asatdbanner''photo atthetop ofthe website page.ECF N o.49-19,at 1.The court fnds thatthe tlnitd factor w eighs againsta fincting offaituse. D. The fourth and finalfactorlooksto theeffectoftheuse upon thepotentialm arketfor thecopyrightedwork.17U.S.C.j107/).TheSupremeCourthasstatedthatthefolzrthfactor isTfundoubtedly the singlem ostim portantelem entoffairuse.''H a er,471 U .S.at566.The courtisfçrequized to dete= ine whether the defendants Euse ofthe logoqwould materially impairthe m azketability ofthe work and whetheritw otlld actas a m arketsubstitute forit.'' Bond,317F.3d385,396(4th Cir.2003)(internalquotadon marksomitted).Defendantsargue that there is no evidence thatthe appearance ofthe photo on H annabass'website had an adverse effect on tlae m arket for tlae photograph,poindng to Cancian'searnings from past 18 Ecensesversuspastsettlem entagzeem ents.ECF N o.49,at18.To date,Cancian haslicensed thisphotograph fotzrseparatetimes,eazning $1,625.00.ECF No.49-7.H ehasalso entered ' ihto two settlementagreementsforinfringemenyfora totalof$5,250.00.ECF No.49-20. D efendants argue that Cancian cannot say how he w ould calculate the license fees for the photograph oridendfy anym arketfactorsthatwould determ ineitsvalue.ECF N o.49,at18. H e has not m arketed the photo and has not offered it for sale.ECF N o.49-8,at 14. D efendantsarguethatthisabsenceofevidenceindicatesthatCancian cannotcreateaquestion offactasto whethertheiruse offfspeeding Fall'?affected the potenéalm arketforthephoto. ECF N o.49,at18. M eanwhile, defendants argue that H annabass and Sénson Com m unications have derived no Enancialbenefh from the use ofthe photo and thatthereisno evidence thatthe photo conttibuted to any increased inteznettrafficto H annabass'autobodyw ebsite.ECF N o. 49,at19.D efendantsalso pointoutthatphotographsoffallroadwaysarem oreplentifulthan one would im agine.Apparently,as defendants detailin theirbrief in support of summ ary judgment,on dfshuttetstock''alone,over14,000imagescanbefound bysearclzingffhighwayy'' fTleaves,''and fffall.''Theseffsimilar,ifnotidentical''photographscan belicensedfor$2.90per m onth ofuse.Ld.zDefendantsargue that,given thefactthatso many sim ilarphotoscan be had so easily,the idea that defendants'use of ffspeecling Fall''had any tl'ue im pact on the m arkem lace isunim aginable.Id. D efendantsnlissthem arkin theizargum entby focusing on theizown useoftlnisphoto specifically rather than the consequences of pe= itting uses such as tllis broadly. Tr-f'hefourth fairuse factor...requirescourtsto considernotonlythe extentofm arketharm 19 caused by the patticulat acéons ofthe alleged infringet,butalso whethet unrestticted and widespread conductofthesortengaged in bythedefendant...would reslzltin a substandally adverseimpactonthepotentialmarketfortheoriginal.''Cam bell,510U.S.at590(internal quotaéonmarksandcitationsolnitted).M u h v.M illennium Radio Gr .LLC,650F.3d295, 308(3dCir.2011),exanlinedthisfactorinthecontextoftheposdngofacopyrightedpicture taken byaprofessionalphotographeron awebsitenewsardcle.Thecourtnoted that,ffg ijfit were possible to reproduce (a photographer'sj unaltered work, as a whole, without com pensadon under the guise ofnews reportage ..'. itwould surely have a substanéally adverseim pacton hisabilityto licensehisphotogzaphs.. ''Id.Likewise,Cancianisacom m ercial photographerwho engagesin thelicensing ofphotographsforprofh.W erew ebsite operators pe= itted to use copyrighted photographswithoutobtaining licenses on a gtand scale,sites likeTfshutterstock''would no longerbeableto chatgeeven $2.90petmonth fottheirmyriad fallfoliagephotographs.The courtfindsthatthefotzrth factorw eighsin favor ofa fm ding of fniruse. H aving weighed the above fourfactors,the cokzrtdisagreeswith defendants.The fair usedoctrineisinapplicable to these facts. A!II. Finally, defendants argue that Cancian cannot sustain his case without ptoof of dam ages,citing deposition tesdm onyshowing thatCancian doesnotknow how m uch heearns from lnisphotographs available for license.ECF N o.49,at20.A s has already been stated, however,Cancian haspreviouslyEcensed thisphoto on fouroccasions,eatning $1,625,and has entered into settlem entagzeem entsincluding retroacéve licenses twice in the am ountof 20 $5,250.ECF No.49-79ECF No.49-20.Thisevidenceconstimtesproofofdamages,however sm allthose dam agesmightbe. W II. For the reasons explained above,the couztD EN IE S defendants'm oéonsto yttike, ECFNos.51& 52,andDENIESdefendants'motionformlmmaryjudgment,ECFNo.48. An appropriateo rderwillbeentered thisday. yofluly, 2019 Enteted:Tlais/T da /w/ 'rA,M # . . & -X 2 V chael .Urbanski ChiefUnited StatesDistdctludge 21
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
