Richardson v. Complex Media, Inc.

Background

Marc Richardson alleged that he owns the copyright in a photograph of British rapper Skepta. He claimed that Complex Media, Woot Media, and unidentified defendants posted the photograph without his permission on the @complex_uk Instagram account. Richardson alleged that Complex Media created or directed the creation of the account, controlled its content, and had the right to post there. He also alleged that the account directed users to Complex’s United States website and online retail shop.

Richardson asserted direct copyright infringement based on copying, publishing, and displaying the photograph in the United States. He also asserted that Complex Media was secondarily liable because it allegedly supervised and benefited from Woot Media’s reproduction, distribution, broadcasting, and publication of the photograph. He sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Motion to Dismiss

Complex Media moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that Richardson could not pursue his copyright claims in federal court because he had not alleged a domestic act of infringement.

On such a motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it does not accept bare legal conclusions as facts. The complaint must include enough factual content to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

Copyright and United States Conduct

The court explained that the Copyright Act generally does not apply to conduct occurring entirely outside the United States. When a claim involves foreign conduct, the plaintiff must allege a predicate act of infringement in the United States that supports the claim. Merely making a work available to online users in the United States is not enough. A complaint must allege an additional connecting fact, such as directing the copyrighted material into the United States, intending and causing effects in the United States, or uploading the material to servers located in the United States.

The court found Richardson’s allegations sufficient. Richardson alleged that the defendants uploaded and displayed the photograph from Instagram servers in the United States and that Woot Media or Complex Media made a copy of the photograph from those servers before uploading it to the same United States-based servers. The court stated that copyright infringement includes violating the owner’s exclusive right to reproduce the work and that Richardson adequately alleged ownership by providing the photograph’s copyright registration number.

The court therefore concluded that Richardson plausibly alleged a direct act of infringement in the United States and the additional connecting fact required for a claim involving alleged foreign conduct. It distinguished an earlier case involving an Instagram post because that complaint did not allege that the images had been posted using servers located in the United States.

Disposition

Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied Complex Media’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether Complex Media ultimately infringed Richardson’s copyright or whether Richardson would win the case.