Monroe v. Buzzfeed, Inc.

Background

T. Eric Monroe, a photojournalist and photographer of hip-hop music and culture, alleged that Defendants copied and published one of his photographs in a Complex Facebook post on or about March 20, 2021. Monroe alleged that he owned the photograph and its exclusive rights, had registered it with the United States Copyright Office, and had displayed it with attribution and copyright-management information, including his signature.

The opinion’s caption names Buzzfeed, Inc. and other defendants, but the first amended complaint replaced Buzzfeed with Complex Media, Inc. as the named defendant. The complaint also named ten unidentified defendants. Complex moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. In the alternative, Complex asked the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment, which can resolve a claim based on evidence outside the pleadings.

Direct Copyright-Infringement Claim

The court denied Complex’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action. To state a direct copyright-infringement claim, Monroe had to allege ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original parts of the work.

Complex argued that Monroe had granted Facebook and its users, including Complex, an express or implied license to share the photograph by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of service and posting the photograph on Facebook. The court concluded that Facebook’s terms clearly granted Facebook a license but did not clearly grant the same license to all Facebook users. The court also concluded that the complaint did not allege the narrow circumstances generally required for an implied license, such as creating a work at another party’s request and intending that party to copy and distribute it.

Vicarious or Contributory Copyright-Infringement Claim

The court denied Complex’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action. Monroe plausibly alleged that Complex either intentionally encouraged or induced infringement by the unidentified defendants, or profited from their alleged infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.

The court stated that this claim could proceed unless and until the unidentified defendants were identified or dismissed. It also denied Complex’s request to dismiss those defendants because the record did not establish that the claims against them were time-barred.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Claims

The third cause of action alleged violations of Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The court granted in part and denied in part Complex’s motion to dismiss this cause of action.

The court denied dismissal of Monroe’s claim under Section 1202(b), which concerns knowing removal or alteration of copyright-management information. Monroe alleged that the photograph originally contained his signature and that Complex distributed a version without it. He also alleged that he sent Defendants a notice of the unauthorized use on January 12, 2023, and that Defendants did not respond meaningfully. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found these allegations sufficient to support the required knowledge and intent allegations. The court declined to consider additional material offered by Complex because it had not converted the motion into a summary-judgment motion.

The court granted dismissal of Monroe’s Section 1202(a) claim concerning allegedly false copyright-management information. Monroe identified the word “Complex” above the photograph in the Facebook post as false information. The court held that this designation identified the Facebook user who posted the photograph, not the photograph’s title or author. Because user information is not copyright-management information under the statute, the court held that Monroe had not stated a Section 1202(a) claim.

Damages, Fees, and Costs

The court denied Complex’s motion to dismiss Monroe’s requests for statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court said that motions to dismiss generally address causes of action, not individual forms of relief, and that it was premature to decide whether particular relief would be available. The court noted, however, that it was aware of statutory limits on damages, costs, and attorney’s fees for infringement occurring before copyright registration and would apply those limits if relevant.

Unidentified Defendants

The court denied Complex’s motion to dismiss the ten unidentified defendants. The court explained that fictitious defendants may remain in a case while the plaintiff seeks their identities through discovery, although they must eventually be dismissed if discovery produces no identities. The court held that parties should not be dismissed merely because claims against them could be time-barred; dismissal would require a showing that the claims are time-barred.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Complex’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Specifically, it denied dismissal of the direct copyright-infringement claim, the vicarious or contributory infringement claim, and the Section 1202(b) claim; granted dismissal of the Section 1202(a) false-information claim; denied dismissal of the requests for statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs; and denied dismissal of the unidentified defendants. The court also declined to convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment, so Complex’s alternative request for summary judgment was denied.