Rock v. Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC

Background

Mick Rock brought a copyright lawsuit alleging that Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC, Barneys New York, Inc., and The Real Real, Inc. used a photograph of musician Lou Reed on clothing without a license. Rock claimed to be the photograph’s creator and owner. The court previously granted summary judgment to the defendants because Rock did not establish that the photograph had been registered with the Copyright Office or that a proper application had been refused.

The registration Rock relied on covered a book called “Mick Rock Exposed” but expressly excluded previously published works. The opinion states that Rock and the defendants agreed the photograph had been published numerous times dating back to the 1970s. The court also stated that Rock produced no evidence of a separate registration or a rejected application for the photograph.

Motions and Governing Standards

Enfants Riches Deprimes and Barneys New York moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). They also sought sanctions against Rock’s counsel, Richard Liebowitz, and Liebowitz Law Firm PLLC, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority.

Under section 505, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. The court considered whether Rock’s litigation position was objectively unreasonable, whether the claims were frivolous, the parties’ motivations, and whether fees were needed for compensation or deterrence. For sanctions, the court required clear evidence that the claims were entirely meritless and that the conduct served improper purposes. The court also explained that sanctions under section 1927 or the court’s inherent authority generally require bad faith.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Rock and his counsel knew, or should have known, that the “Mick Rock Exposed” registration did not register the photograph because it excluded previously published works and Rock had acknowledged the photograph’s prior publication. The court further stated that counsel had a duty to ensure that the complaint’s factual allegations had evidentiary support.

The court found that counsel stonewalled discovery requests for documents related to the registration and later argued without evidentiary support that the registration had mistakenly excluded the photograph. The court characterized the arguments as contradicted by the record and found that the failure to investigate, obstruction of discovery, misleading of the court, and meritless arguments demonstrated bad faith.

The court treated the defendants as prevailing parties even though Rock’s claims had been dismissed without prejudice. It reasoned that the summary-judgment ruling materially changed the parties’ legal relationship because Rock could not bring copyright claims against the defendants unless and until the photograph was registered. The court also found that the claims were objectively unreasonable and frivolous, did not advance the purposes of copyright law, and warranted fees for deterrence.

Amounts Awarded

The defendants requested $160,038.50 in attorneys’ fees, $4,181.82 in costs, and an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 for the fee and sanctions motion. The court reduced the requested fees by applying a 25 percent reduction to billed hours and lowering certain hourly rates. It awarded $95,826.31 in attorneys’ fees and $4,181.82 in costs, for a total of $100,008.13.

The court found the requested costs reasonable. They primarily involved Rock’s deposition, postage, legal research, and document production. The court declined to award fees and costs incurred for the fee and sanctions motion because it concluded that Rock’s opposition was not frivolous or sanctionable.

Disposition

The court awarded Enfants Riches Deprimes and Barneys New York $100,008.13 in attorneys’ fees and costs. It sanctioned Richard Liebowitz and Liebowitz Law Firm PLLC and ordered them to collectively pay $10,000 of that fee award. Rock was liable for the remaining $90,008.13. The defendants’ request for fees and costs associated with the motion and reply was denied.