Richardson v. Commerce Media Holdings, LLC

Background

Marc Richardson, a fashion photographer, brought one copyright-infringement claim under the Copyright Act against Commerce Media Holdings, LLC, Complex Media, Inc., and several unidentified defendants. The claim concerned a photograph Richardson had taken of the rapper known as Tyler, the Creator. Richardson alleged that he registered the photograph with the United States Copyright Office on April 17, 2022, and had posted it online between January 18 and January 23, 2022.

According to the amended complaint, Complex Media operated the public Instagram account “@complexmusic,” and defendants posted the photograph there without Richardson’s authorization for commercial purposes. The alleged post included graphics and text over the photograph, and defendants tagged Richardson’s Instagram account in the caption. Richardson alleged that defendants copied and stored the photograph rather than using Instagram’s native sharing or reposting functions.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Richardson had already amended his complaint after the first motion to dismiss and an order allowing him either to amend or oppose that motion.

Legal standard

The court explained that a copyright-infringement complaint must allege four things: the specific original work at issue, the plaintiff’s ownership of the copyright, registration of the copyright as required by law, and the acts and time period during which the defendant allegedly infringed the copyright. The fourth requirement was the focus of defendants’ motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not state when defendants allegedly infringed Richardson’s rights. Although the complaint identified the photograph and alleged that defendants published it on the Instagram account, it gave no date or time period for that alleged infringement. The court ruled that this failure meant the amended complaint did not satisfy the required pleading standard.

The court also noted that defendants represented, without a response from Richardson, that the photograph had been posted on and removed from an Instagram account on January 25, 2022—before Richardson’s April 17, 2022 copyright registration. The court did not rely on that representation as the stated basis for dismissal, but explained that the timing could affect Richardson’s ability to obtain statutory damages and attorney’s fees if the infringement began before registration and the work was unpublished under the Copyright Act.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied another opportunity to amend because Richardson had already been alerted to the missing infringement date and had amended his complaint without correcting that defect. The court found that another amendment was unlikely to be productive.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the motions pending at Dockets 16 and 24.