Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. Pixels.com, LLC

Background

Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. (MGP) alleged that Time USA, LLC and Pixels.com, LLC infringed MGP’s copyrights and falsified copyright-management information. MGP owns three photographs by Michael Grecco. In agreements from 2000 and 2005, MGP allegedly licensed Time Magazine to use those photographs on magazine covers. The agreements stated that ownership of the photographs and their copyrights remained with MGP, while Time retained the right to reproduce the covers “as [they] appear[]” in “any media, for any purpose, in perpetuity without additional payment.”

Time later worked with Pixels to sell print-on-demand products displaying the covers, including products made from canvas, wood, and metal. Pixels’ website displayed full-resolution previews with a “fineartamerica.com” watermark and listed the artist as “Time.” MGP claimed that these uses exceeded the license and that the watermark and attribution falsified copyright-management information under § 1202(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively sought summary judgment. The court ruled on the motion to dismiss because the transfer of rights to Time was not disputed.

Copyright-infringement claim

The court treated the scope of the license as a contract-interpretation question. It rejected MGP’s argument that “any media” meant only means of mass communication. The court concluded that “media,” read together with “any purpose” and “in perpetuity,” included the print-on-demand products at issue. The agreement did not restrict reproduction to technology existing when the agreements were signed, and it contained no restriction on Time’s use of third-party agents.

The court therefore held that the agreements allowed Time to reproduce the covers on the products at issue and allowed Time to delegate those reproduction efforts to Pixels. The court concluded that defendants had not exceeded the licenses.

Copyright-management-information claim

The court dismissed MGP’s claim that the website’s watermark and attribution violated § 1202(a). First, it distinguished the photographs from the completed covers, which also contained the Time logo, red border, and text. The court reasoned that the watermark and attribution identified rights in the covers, not ownership of MGP’s photographs. Second, the court found that MGP had not adequately alleged that defendants acted with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement, as § 1202(a) requires.

The court did not consider MGP’s argument under § 1202(b), stating that MGP had not cited that provision in the amended complaint and had not provided adequate supporting arguments.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.