Exler v. Travel Exploration, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-08853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Exler v. Travel Exploration, Judge Torres granted default judgment for copyright infringement, awarding $4,000 in damages, fees, and costs.
Patrick Exler received a $4,000 default judgment against Travel Exploration, Inc.; the award included $1,500 in damages, $2,100 in attorney’s fees, and $400 in costs.
What happened
In Exler v. Travel Exploration, Inc., Patrick Exler claimed that Travel Exploration used his photograph without permission. The company did not answer the complaint, defend the case, or respond to the court’s order requiring it to explain why judgment should not be entered.
The court found that Exler owned a registered copyright in the photograph and provided proof that the company used it on its website. The court awarded $1,500 in actual damages, rejecting Exler’s request to assume that the company had earned additional profits because he provided no evidence of the company’s revenue.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the default-judgment motion. She awarded $2,100 in attorney’s fees and $400 in costs, for a total award of $4,000, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Exler v. Travel Exploration, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08853
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
Patrick Exler alleged that Travel Exploration, Inc. used a photograph he took without permission, violating the Copyright Act. The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default after the defendant failed to answer or otherwise defend the action. Exler then moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The defendant also failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding default judgment.
Exler’s counsel submitted an affidavit stating that the motion papers, supporting declarations, damages statement, proposed judgment, and docket were sent to the defendant by United States Priority Mail at the defendant’s address on file with the New York Secretary of State.
Liability
For a copyright-infringement claim, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements of the work. Exler stated that he took the photograph and registered it with the Copyright Office. The court explained that a copyright-registration certificate is initial evidence that a copyright is valid. Exler also submitted proof that the photograph appeared on the defendant’s website. The court therefore concluded that he was entitled to judgment on the infringement claim.
Damages
Exler requested $3,000 in damages. He provided evidence that he could have charged a $1,500 licensing fee for the photograph. He also argued that the court should assume the defendant earned at least $1,500 from the infringement. The court rejected that argument because Exler provided no evidence of the defendant’s profits or revenue related to the photograph. The court awarded $1,500 in actual damages.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Exler requested $2,550 in attorney’s fees for six hours of work by his counsel, Richard Liebowitz, at $425 per hour. The Copyright Act allows reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for a prevailing party. The court found that the six hours were reasonable but reduced the hourly rate to $350. It cited the simplicity of the claim, counsel’s performance in the litigation, and counsel’s repeated failures to follow court rules and an express court order. The resulting fee award was $2,100.
Exler also requested $440 in costs: a $400 filing fee and a $40 personal-service fee. Because he provided no documentation supporting the $40 service fee, the court awarded only the $400 filing fee.
Disposition
The court granted Exler’s motion for default judgment. It awarded $1,500 in damages, $2,100 in attorney’s fees, and $400 in costs, totaling $4,000. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.