Opinion

Cate Brown Photography v. David-Jacobs Publishing Group, LLC

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Aug 27, 2019
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

CATE BROWN PHOTOGRAPHY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:19-cv-447-T-02CPT

DAVID-JACOBS PUBLISHING GROUP,

LLC d/b/a Adventure Outdoors Magazine,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment of

Default Against Defendant (Dkt. 14). After carefully considering the motion, the

declarations and exhibits (Dkts. 14-1, 14-2), and the entire court file, the Court

concludes the motion should be granted in its entirety.

The complaint seeks damages for copyright infringement in violation of the

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff, as owner of a registered

copyright for a specific photograph of a sailboat (the Work), alleges that

Defendant copied the Work without Plaintiff’s permission and distributed the

Work on the internet to promote the sale of goods as part of Defendant’s business.

Id.; Dkt. 14-1. The principal photographer of Plaintiff avers that the photograph is

scarce and of high quality. Dkt. 14-1¶¶ 16, 17, 20.

Despite being served with the summons and complaint (Dkts. 3, 8),

Defendant failed to plead or otherwise defend this action. A clerk’s default was

entered on March 27, 2019. Dkt. 10. The Court finds that liability is established

by virtue of the default on the well-pleaded complaint. See Malibu Media, LLC v.

Danford, No. 2:14-cv-511-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2238210, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May

12, 2015) (finding liability for direct copyright infringement by virtue of default

and citing Buchanen v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987)).1

The Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504. In her

declaration, Catherine Brown avers, as creator of the Work, that her actual

damages total $6,720, taking into consideration a “scarcity multiplier” and a

quality factor to account for lost revenue from the infringement.2 A scarcity

1 See also Reiffer v. Legendary Journeys, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-2748-T-35AAS, 2019 WL

2029973 (M.D. Fla. April 10, 2019),(awarding by default judgment actual damages of

$75,200.00, attorney’s fees of $10,298.00, and costs, for copyright infringement of a

photograph), adopted in 2019 WL 2029829 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2019); McKennon v. Newscastic,

Inc., 6:18-cv-323-Orl-41DCI, 2018 WL 5847424 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2018) (awarding by default

judgment statutory damages of $45,000.00, and attorney’s fees and costs of $3,369.20, for

copyright infringement of a photograph).

2 The license fee for the work is $280.00 per year for a single use for one year. Multiplied

by a scarcity factor of 3 and a quality factor of 4, the actual damages amount to $3,360.00 for one

year. The infringement occurred for two years totaling $6,720.00. Dkt. 14-1 ¶¶ 20, 21.

-2-

multiplier attempts to compensate for a work’s loss in value based on the

decreased likelihood that potential buyers will purchase a work that has been

displayed commonly and widely on the internet to advertise outdoor destinations

and products, as is the case here. See Reiffer v. Legendary Journeys, Inc., No.

8:17-cv-2748-T-35AAS, 2019 WL2029973, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2019)

(finding a scarcity multiplier of 5 adequate to account for lost revenues, before

consideration of the loss of exclusivity), adopted in 2019 WL 2029829 (M.D. Fla.

May 2, 2019). In short, the Work is devalued because it is displayed on a website

surrounded by other images. Potential buyers would believe that the Work must be

a readily available stock photo rather than a carefully orchestrated photograph

taken while Catherine Brown was precariously hanging from the edge of a

separate small vessel to catch the perfect angle to photograph the sailboat. Dkt.

14-1 ¶¶ 7,17.3

This Court, and others, agree that statutory damages are “especially

appropriate in default judgment cases because the information needed to prove

actual damages is uniquely within the infringers’ control and is not disclosed.”

Clever Covers, Inc. v. Sw. Fla. Storm Defense, LLC, 554 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1311

3 In addition to the scarcity factor, the loss of exclusivity may also be considered. See

Reiffer, 2019 WL 2029973 at *4.

-3-

(M.D.Fla. 2008) (citation omitted). The complaint establishes an inference of

willfulness on the part of Defendant. Having established actual damages of at

least $6,720.00, the Court finds that $20,160.00, or three times the actual damages,

is appropriate. This amount does not provide a windfall recovery and does bear

some relationship to the actual damages suffered. Clever Covers, Inc., 554

F.Supp.2d at 1313. The Court finds these damages are a sum certain, which is

supported by the allegations of the complaint and the supporting declarations.

Costs and attorney’s fees are sought pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505 in the

amount of $473.00 and $4,447.50, respectively, which the Court finds are

authorized, reasonable, and appropriate.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1) The Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment of Default Against

Defendant (Dkt. 14) is granted.

2) Defendant is permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly

infringing Plaintiff’s rights in the Work and from using the internet to reproduce,

copy, distribute, or make the Work available for distribution to the public, unless

Defendant receives a license or express authority from Plaintiff. Defendant is

required to destroy all illegal downloaded or reproduced copies of the Work in its

possession.

-4-

3) Plaintiff shall recover of Defendant the sum of $20,160.00 for

damages, $473.00 for costs, and $4,447.50 for attorney’s fees plus

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest .

4) The Clerk is directed to enter a default final judgment against the

Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the total amount of $25,080.50, plus pre-

judgment interest at the annual percentage rate calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1961 from November 11, 2017 through the date of the judgment as well as post-

judgment interest.

5) The Clerk is directed to close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 27, 2019.

s/William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-5-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.