Siegel v. Sing Tao Newspapers New York LTD.

Background

Jefferson Siegel, a freelance photojournalist, sued Sing Tao Newspapers New York Ltd. for copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Sing Tao published Siegel’s photographs on its news website without permission or authorization. Siegel had a freelance agreement with the New York Times providing for co-ownership of photographs, and the New York Times licensed content, including photographs, to subscribers. Sing Tao had subscribed to that service for more than 30 years, but the opinion states that neither Siegel nor Sanders Law Group knew of Sing Tao’s subscription before filing suit.

Before filing, Sanders Law Group asked Siegel to confirm that no licensing agreement covered the photographs and sent Sing Tao an audit letter asking about a license. Sing Tao did not respond to the audit letter. Siegel approved the claim based on his understanding that Sing Tao lacked authorization. After Sing Tao appeared in the case, it referred to a valid license or sublicense arrangement in its answer. On July 17, 2024, the New York Times informed both sides that the photographs were properly licensed to Sing Tao. Siegel then sought consent to dismiss the case, but Sing Tao requested discovery before agreeing. The court later entered a dismissal with prejudice.

Defendant’s requests

Sing Tao sought $226,149.97 in attorney’s fees and costs. It sought fees from Siegel under Section 505 of the Copyright Act and from Sanders Law Group under Section 1927, which permits sanctions when an attorney unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies court proceedings. Sing Tao also relied on the court’s inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct.

The court explained that a prevailing party may receive fees under the Copyright Act, but an award is discretionary rather than automatic. The court considered the factors identified in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., including whether the losing party’s position was frivolous or unreasonable, the party’s motivation, and the need for compensation or deterrence. The court also explained that sanctions under Section 1927 or the court’s inherent power require bad faith or comparable improper conduct, supported by specific factual findings.

Ruling on sanctions against Sanders Law Group

The court denied Sing Tao’s request for sanctions against Sanders Law Group. Although the firm had some general awareness that the New York Times licensed content to media subscribers, the record supported its representation that it did not know about Sing Tao’s specific license before filing the case. The firm took steps to investigate possible licenses, relied on Siegel’s information, and sent an audit letter directly to Sing Tao. The court concluded that this conduct did not show bad faith. Even if the firm had acted negligently, negligence alone would not justify sanctions.

The court also found that Sanders Law Group did not unreasonably prolong the case after learning about the license. Within days of receiving confirmation from the New York Times, Siegel sought Sing Tao’s consent to dismiss the action. The court found that the later delay resulted mostly, if not entirely, from Sing Tao’s lack of responsiveness and requests for discovery. The court also rejected sanctions based on the registration of the copyrights, finding no evidence that the firm knowingly registered them improperly.

Ruling on fees against Siegel

The court denied Sing Tao’s request for fees against Siegel under the Copyright Act. It found that Siegel reasonably relied on the information available to him when he filed the action and that his belief that Sing Tao lacked authorization was mistaken, not made in bad faith. The New York Times agreement did not mention Sing Tao, and reviewing that agreement would not necessarily have revealed Sing Tao’s subscription arrangement.

The court also found little need for deterrence or compensation. Nothing in the record showed that Siegel regularly filed frivolous infringement suits, and the parties did not dispute that he had a valid and legitimate interest in the photographs he shared with the New York Times. The court further criticized the amount requested, noting that no initial pretrial conference, depositions, written discovery, or dispositive-motion briefing occurred. More than half of the requested fees—approximately $120,000—was spent preparing the fee motion after the case was dismissed. The court concluded that awarding fees would not further the Copyright Act’s goals.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Sing Tao’s fee application in its entirety and denied its request for sanctions against Sanders Law Group. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the fee-motion docket entries, ECF Nos. 37 and 38.