The defendant in the latest Indiana copyright lawsuit is a Lafayette,Indiana-based roofing company alleged to have shared a video showing the tornado damage from the town of Sullivan, Indiana on its company Facebook page. The plaintiff is a professional videographer from Colorado.
Companies, go delete old social media posts that include any content that you don’t own or have well-documented permission to use and share. As we’re seeing, old posts can carry a legal risk, so if they are no longer providing a marketing benefit, consider deletion.
Stay tuned for updates.
Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing
Court Case Number: 4:24-cv-00023-PPS-JEM File Date: March 14, 2024 Plaintiff: Aaron Rigsby Plaintiff Counsel: Craig Sanders, Esq. of Sanders Law Group Defendant: John W. Darnell, Inc. d/b/a All Seasons Roofing Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Philip P. Simon Referred To: John E. Martin
An Indianapolis-based advertising agency is being sued for using a 5-second song clip in a promotional video posted on their Facebook page on March 11, 2016.
The plaintiff, a musical group called the Quad City DJ’s, alleges that they first discovered the “infringing” post on June 20, 2023. Approximately 5-6 seconds of the plaintiff’s song, “Space Jam,” are played in the background of a video promoting Dribble to Work Day during the NCAA Women’s Final Four. The short promotional video, still viewable here, has only 294 views since being published in 2016. How many of those views are the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel?
This lawsuit should serve as a warning to all businesses to go back and review old social media posts, checking for any unauthorized photos, music, videos, etc. Old social media content is now being scanned by AI bots, even “watching” old videos, and a federal lawsuit could always be lurking. While real damages might be low, copyright law allows for a plaintiff to recover statutory damages, legal costs, and attorney fees.
Consider whether it’s time for your business to delete some old social media content.
Watson Music Group, LLC v. Borshoff, Inc.
Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-02117-TWP-KMB File Date: November 22, 2023 Plaintiff: Watson Music Group, LLC d/b/a Quadrasound Music Plaintiff Counsel: Craig Sanders, Esq. of Sanders Law Group Defendant: Borshoff, Inc. Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Kellie M. Barr
An Indiana copyright lawsuit has been filed by Taylor Shaye Designs, a jewelry designer and retailer/wholesaler from Louisiana.
The defendant, located in Whitestown, Indiana, is the apparent U.S. sales and distribution arm of the global Shein conglomerate, a Chinese online fast fashion retailer that is known for selling inexpensive apparel, jewelry, and other accessories.
The defendant is accused of copying the plaintiff’s registered “Let’s Go Girls” jewelry design.
The standard for determining whether the reproduction right in a copyrighted work has been infringed is “substantial similarity.” Blog readers can judge for themselves whether the above designs have substantial similarity. Hopefully the lawsuit will see an argument that the designs are not substantially similar but I anticipate either a jurisdictional challenge or a discrete settlement as the most likely outcomes. Either way, stay tuned to this blog for updates.
Taylor Shaye Designs LLC v. Shein Distribution Corp.
Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB File Date: April 11, 2023 Plaintiff: Taylor Shaye Designs LLC Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Story Dean LLP Defendant: Shein Distribution Corp. Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Sarah Evans Barker Referred To: Tim A. Baker
Here’s another copyright lawsuit that supports the argument for a copyright small claims court.
The plaintiff is a New York-based professional photographer who owns the registered copyright in a photograph of Lauren Miranda, a New York teacher fired over a topless selfie. Mrs. Miranda was subsequently awarded $3 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit over the firing.
The defendant, Chicks on the Right, an Indianapolis-based politically conservative online news radio show and website, allegedly used the plaintiff’s photograph of Mrs. Miranda in an April 2019 blog post reporting on the teacher’s gender discrimination lawsuit (note: the plaintiff filed for registration of the photograph on June 30, 2019, almost 3 months after the blog post). While the defendant might be hoping to rely on a “news reporting” fair use defense, unfortunately there’s really no “fair use” reason to use the plaintiff’s specific photograph. Numerous images of Mrs. Miranda exist that could have been used (with proper authorization), and the Chicks on the Right blog post isn’t commenting, criticizing, or reporting on the plaintiff’s actual image. Having an online “news blog” isn’t a free pass to use any photograph you find on Google Images.
The reality is that professional photographers take lots of photos for a living, and sell only few. Perhaps political differences kept this dispute from reaching a simple non-litigious monetary resolution. Now, we can expect technicalities about the actual photograph’s ownership, registration or use to be explored in the defendant’s response or discovery.
On one hand, the Chicks on the Right, who likely use photographs for news articles on a daily basis, should be in the habit of verifying the source of every photograph they post on their blog. Presumably, in this specific instance two years ago, someone just got lazy or quick and grabbed the wrong photograph off the internet.
On the other hand, there’s simply no reason a U.S. Federal Court and esteemed judges like Jane Magnus-Stinson and Debra McVicker Lynch, already overloaded with significant legal disputes, should be dealing with a copyright lawsuit over one photograph (of a person most people have never heard of) used on a single “news” blog post. Statutory damages for a single non-willful infringement would be $750, almost certainly less than the plaintiff spent on preparing and filing this lawsuit, and definitely less than the Court has to expend in processing the dispute. You can’t blame the plaintiff though; currently, they have no other alternative legal option than federal court for a photography copyright dispute. Time will tell if there’s better way to handle such disputes.
Note that the allegedly infringing image no longer appears on the defendant’s website as of the posting of this blog (11/29/21).
By the way, go do a Google search for Lauren Miranda’s attorney. Sharp dresser. So much so, I’m giving this post a “Fashion” tag.
Stay tuned for updates.
Alcorn v. COTR, LLC
File Date: November 22, 2021 Plaintiff: Victor Alcorn Plaintiff Counsel: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Defendant: COTR, LLC Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch
This copyright lawsuit involves a painter attempting to stop an online merchandise platform from using his artwork on customizable products. The Defendant t-shirt website, like thousands of other sites, sells blank apparel that can be customized with a user-uploaded image or text.
Per the Complaint (below), the John Doe defendants (1-11) have, via separate registered accounts, been uploading a digital copy of one of Plaintiff’s paintings since 2018 and using the online platform to create unauthorized products which they presumably then sell elsewhere. Plaintiff’s counsel first contacted the Defendant website in April 2020 about the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s artwork, seemingly with no acceptable resolution or cessation.
In lawsuits such as this with numerous John Doe defendants, the first and most difficult hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to discover the identity of the John Does. The similarity in the John Doe’s account names on the t-shirt platform seem to indicate that it’s just one source (an individual or small group) that is repeatedly ordering new product. I wouldn’t expect any response to be filed by the John Doe Defendants, who will likely disappear altogether, and probably a long road of discovery for the Plaintiff perhaps eventually leading to a default judgment against the determined “guilty” party.
The vicarious infringement and contributory infringement claims against the online t-shirt website will be interesting to follow. Presumably, having been put on notice of the unauthorized use in April 2020, the t-shirt website might be expected to take more action to prevent future infringements of the same image. But how closely do they (or should they be expected to) patrol user-submitted images for infringement? It seems like the t-shirt printing and shipping process would be almost completely automated following the user submission, with no copyright verification step in between.
Stay tuned for updates.
Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-02519-TWP-MJD File Date: Friday, September 24, 2021 Plaintiff: Andrew “Andy” Thomas Plaintiff Counsel: Sean J. Quinn of SouthBank Legal: LaDue | Curran | Kuehn, Oliver Maguire of Evans & Dixon, LLC Defendant: ooShirts, Inc., John Does 1-11 Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Infringement, Contributory Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore