Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC v. Dagny’s Real Estate LLC and Does 1–10

Background

Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC alleged that it owned all rights to photographs taken by Andy Ryan of property at 340 Stanwich Road in Greenwich, Connecticut. The photographs appeared on the plaintiff’s website with copyright notices and licensing information. The plaintiff alleged that Dagny’s Real Estate LLC used the photographs on its website for commercial purposes without authorization.

The amended complaint asserted copyright infringement and claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which protects copyright-management information, such as the copyright owner’s name, copyright notices, and terms of use. Dagny’s moved to dismiss only the DMCA claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly supported relief.

For DMCA § 1202(a), the court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Dagny’s added its own logos, author names, bylines, and attributions to copies of the photographs, knowing the information was false and intending to cause or conceal infringement. The court denied the motion as to the § 1202(a) claim.

For DMCA § 1202(b)(1), the court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that copyright information originally appeared with the photographs, that Dagny’s removed it, and that the removal was intentional because Dagny’s used the photographs to attract customers and promote properties. The court denied the motion as to that claim.

For DMCA § 1202(b)(2), the court held that the plaintiff did not allege that Dagny’s separately distributed copyright-management information after removing or altering it, apart from distributing the photographs themselves. The court therefore found that the plaintiff failed to state a § 1202(b)(2) claim.

For DMCA § 1202(b)(3), the court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Dagny’s distributed the photographs without the plaintiff’s copyright information, knew that the information had been removed without authorization, and knew or had reasonable grounds to know that the removal would facilitate or conceal infringement. The court denied the motion as to that claim.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part and denied in part Dagny’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a telephone status conference for October 9, 2025. The opinion does not separately state that the motion was “granted” as to § 1202(b)(2), but it expressly concludes that the plaintiff failed to state that claim and states that the motion was granted in part and denied in part.