Ozuzu v. Function, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-06799
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ozuzu v. Function(x), Judge Ramos awarded damages, attorney’s fees, and costs but reduced the amounts requested.
Chioma Ozuzu received $1,500 in damages, $1,225 in attorney’s fees, and $440 in costs. Function(x), Inc., which had defaulted and failed to defend the action, is affected by the judgment and the case’s closure.
What happened
Ozuzu v. Function(x), Inc. concerned Ozuzu’s claim that Function(x) used his photograph on its website without permission. Function(x) did not respond, and the court had already entered a default judgment against it.
The court found that the photograph’s fair market licensing value was $1,500, not the $3,000 Ozuzu requested. It also found that fees were appropriate because Function(x) failed to defend the case.
Judge Ramos granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding $1,500 in damages, $1,225 in attorney’s fees, and $440 in costs, with post-judgment interest; the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Ozuzu v. Function, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06799
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 21, 2020
Background
Chioma Ozuzu brought a copyright-infringement action against Function(x), Inc. under the Copyright Act. Ozuzu alleged that he authored and owned the copyright in a photograph of the cast members of the television show The Real Housewives of New York. According to Ozuzu, Function(x) published an article prominently featuring the photograph on its website on March 13, 2014, without obtaining his consent or a license.
Ozuzu filed the action on July 27, 2018. Function(x) was served on August 13, 2018, but did not respond to the complaint or appear in the case. On June 1, 2020, the court entered a default judgment against Function(x), but denied without prejudice Ozuzu’s earlier request for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court then considered Ozuzu’s renewed motion for those amounts.
Damages
The Copyright Act permits a copyright owner to seek either actual damages and the infringer’s additional profits or statutory damages. Ozuzu elected actual damages and requested $3,000.
The court explained that actual damages must compensate the copyright owner for harm caused by the infringement and must rest on a factual basis rather than speculation. Ozuzu asserted that a license for the photograph would have been worth more than $1,500, relying on a $2,110 fee that Getty Images charged to license a similar photograph. The court noted that Ozuzu had not shown Getty Images had actually licensed that photograph for $2,110. But Ozuzu was a professional photographer who licensed photographs to online and print media, and he maintained that he would have charged $1,500. The court found it reasonable to conclude that Function(x) would have had to pay $1,500 to license the photograph or a similar one.
The court rejected the request for $3,000, explaining that the record did not justify an award above the work’s fair market value. It awarded $1,500 in actual damages.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
The Copyright Act allows an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the court’s discretion. The court found fees appropriate because Function(x) defaulted and offered no defense.
Ozuzu requested $2,550 in attorney’s fees. His attorney, Richard Liebowitz, reported an hourly rate of $425 and six hours of work. The court found that, given Liebowitz’s relatively short time in practice and the simplicity of the case, a rate of $350 per hour was appropriate. It also reduced the compensable time from six hours to 3.5 hours because the listed tasks could have been completed in half the time. The court therefore awarded $1,225 in attorney’s fees.
The opinion states that Ozuzu requested total costs of $440, consisting of a $400 filing fee and $40 for personal service, and the court granted that request. The earlier discussion also refers to a request for $480 in costs, but the court’s final award was $440.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Ozuzu’s renewed motion for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. It awarded Ozuzu $1,500 in damages, $1,225 in attorney’s fees, and $440 in costs. The award accrues post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.