Aamot v. Peterson

Background

Susan Aamot produced illustrations for a book commissioned by Mark Peterson and written in conjunction with Timothy Akers. The parties disputed their compensation agreement, and there was no written contract. Peterson and Akers later self-published the book using Aamot’s illustrations. After Aamot sought payment and registered copyrights in the illustrations, Peterson and Akers said they would remove the illustrations and pull the book from sale.

Aamot filed one claim for willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and sought statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Peterson and Akers denied liability, asserted defenses including an implied license and untimeliness, and brought counterclaims. The parties later agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims and counterclaims except defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The claims were dismissed, and defendants filed a motion seeking fees and costs under § 505 and sanctions against Aamot’s attorney, Maxwell Felsheim, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Arguments

Defendants argued that Aamot’s copyright claim was objectively unreasonable and frivolous for two reasons. First, they contended that an implied license allowed them to use the illustrations. Second, they alleged that Felsheim fabricated evidence to make Aamot eligible for statutory damages by treating the book’s release date as the copyright publication date.

The court declined to decide whether an implied license existed because the parties had voluntarily dismissed their claims. It also concluded that whether an unauthorized publication qualifies as a “publication” under the Copyright Act appeared to be an open legal question in the Eighth Circuit. The court found that defendants had cited only an agency manual and nonbinding case law on that issue. The court further noted that Felsheim said he promptly agreed to dismiss the claim after verifying a publication date that placed the claim outside the statutory-damages period.

Ruling

The court held that Aamot’s claim was colorable and brought in good faith, so an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under § 505 was not warranted. Because the court found that Aamot and Felsheim had acted in good faith, it also denied the request for sanctions under § 1927, which applies when an attorney’s conduct objectively shows intentional or reckless disregard of duties to the court.

The court’s order states: “Defendants’ Joint Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” was DENIED. Judge John R. Tunheim did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claim or the implied-license issue in this order.