Bowers v. Grupo Televisa, S.A.B.

Background

Eric Bowers sued Gupta Televisa, S.A.B. for copyright infringement, seeking damages, a declaration, and an injunction. Bowers alleged that the defendant distributed and displayed his copyrighted photograph on www.ngenespanol.com, a website published by the defendant’s former subsidiary, Editorial Televisa SA De CV. The photograph appeared in an article about Caribbean hotels.

The complaint alleged that the defendant conducted business in New York through companies and affiliates, including Univision and TelevisaUnivision, and that copies of the photograph were made, distributed, and displayed in New York. The defendant submitted a declaration stating that it had no office, property, registration, address, or phone number in New York; did not transact with New York companies concerning the photograph; did not control Univision or TelevisaUnivision; and did not own or control computer systems in New York. The declaration stated that the website was operated from Mexico and targeted Mexican consumers. Bowers submitted no evidence to counter the declaration.

Standing

The defendant argued that Bowers lacked standing to bring the copyright claim because the complaint inconsistently described him as both the copyright owner and an exclusive licensee, and because it did not state when he obtained his rights. The court rejected those arguments. Reading the complaint in Bowers’s favor, the court found that it adequately alleged that he was the exclusive owner of the rights in a photograph he created. The court also explained that copyright registration is required before filing a copyright lawsuit but is not a requirement for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority over a particular defendant. Because the Copyright Act does not provide its own jurisdictional rules, the court applied New York’s long-arm statute and constitutional due-process principles. Bowers relied on specific jurisdiction under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 302(a)(1), 302(a)(2), and 302(a)(3).

Section 302(a)(1): Transacting Business

The court held that the defendant was not subject to jurisdiction under section 302(a)(1), which can apply when a non-New York defendant purposefully conducts business in New York and the claim arises from that business. Even assuming that the defendant could be treated as operating the website through its former subsidiary, the website was not highly interactive with New York users. It only permitted subscriptions to a printed magazine delivered to addresses in Mexico and paid for in Mexican currency. The website provided information about Caribbean hotels but did not sell related goods or services to New York customers.

The court also found that the complaint did not connect the website or the display of Bowers’s photograph to the defendant’s alleged dealings with Univision or TelevisaUnivision. The defendant provided sworn, uncontested evidence denying that it contracted with those companies regarding the photograph. The court therefore found the relationship between the alleged New York transactions and Bowers’s copyright claim too attenuated to establish jurisdiction.

Section 302(a)(2): Tortious Act in New York

The court held that section 302(a)(2) did not provide jurisdiction because neither the defendant nor the former subsidiary that operated the website had a physical presence in New York. The complaint’s references to unidentified affiliates, agents, and subsidiaries in New York were too vague and conclusory. The court also found that Univision and TelevisaUnivision could not be treated as the defendant’s agents because the defendant did not transact with them regarding the photograph and lacked the necessary control over them.

Section 302(a)(3): Injury in New York

The court held that Bowers had not adequately supported jurisdiction under section 302(a)(3), which can apply when an out-of-state tort causes injury in New York and additional statutory conditions are met. Bowers’s opposition addressed this provision in only one conclusory sentence, which the court treated as abandonment of the argument. The court also found the complaint insufficient because it did not identify the alleged tortious acts, explain the alleged harm in New York, or establish that Bowers sustained injury there. The complaint described Bowers as based in Kansas and gave no facts tying him or his business to New York.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice. It permitted Bowers, if he wished to pursue an amended pleading, to file by March 6, 2025, a letter seeking leave to replead, a declaration or other evidence addressing the defendant’s jurisdictional declaration, and a proposed amended complaint showing the changes. The clerk was directed to close the motion.