Crisman v. Van Der Hoog

Background

Chris Crisman brought a copyright-infringement action against Masja Van Der Hoog, doing business as Aster Acupuncture. The complaint alleged that Aster used Crisman’s photograph without permission on its website to promote acupuncture, massage, and cupping services. Crisman alleged that he registered the photograph in 2011 and that Aster violated his exclusive right to reproduce it.

Aster did not appear in the action, even after service of the complaint and default-judgment papers on July 13, 2021. Crisman moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The court found that it had authority over the copyright claim and personal jurisdiction over Aster, whose principal place of business was identified as Oakland, California.

Default Judgment

The court applied the seven factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including the possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the strength of the claim, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of a factual dispute, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the federal policy favoring decisions on the merits.

Because Aster defaulted, the complaint’s well-supported factual allegations were treated as true, except for the amount of damages. The court concluded that Crisman adequately alleged ownership of the photograph and unauthorized copying of it. The court also found that the other factors favored default judgment because Crisman otherwise would have no way to recover for the alleged infringement, Aster had not appeared despite service and outreach, and there was no indication that the default resulted from excusable neglect.

Relief

The court awarded $7,500 in statutory damages. Although Crisman sought at least $25,000 and alleged that the infringement was willful, the court found that amount was not automatic. It determined that the photograph was not especially rare or unique, that only one act of infringement had been alleged, and that Aster removed the photograph after receiving a takedown letter from Crisman’s lawyer. The court concluded that $7,500 was reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.

The court denied Crisman’s request for a permanent injunction. Aster had removed the photograph, and Crisman presented no evidence suggesting that Aster was likely to infringe his works in the future.

The court awarded the requested $10,782.50 in attorney’s fees and $880.86 in costs, finding the requests reasonable and adequately supported by billing records. It granted interest at the statutory rate from the date the judgment was entered and denied prejudgment interest. Judge James Donato issued the order on November 2, 2021.