Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust v. Complex Media, Inc.

Background

Baron Wolman brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against Complex Media, Inc. The dispute concerns a photograph depicting Jimi Hendrix that Complex Media published in a September 20, 2012 article on its website. Wolman allegedly owned the photograph’s copyright and registered it with the Copyright Office in 2017. In January 2019, he assigned his rights and artistic property to the Baron A. Wolman Archives Trust, or BAWAT.

Wolman alleged that he did not discover Complex Media’s use of the photograph until November 2019. BAWAT submitted a November 2019 email appearing to show Wolman notifying his lawyer about the alleged unauthorized use. Wolman died on November 2, 2020, before discovery or depositions occurred. The court later substituted BAWAT, through trustee Kristi A. Wareham, as plaintiff.

The Motions

Complex Media moved for summary judgment on its statute-of-limitations defense. It argued that copyright claims must be brought within three years and that the discovery rule did not apply. BAWAT cross-moved for summary judgment on liability, arguing that it had established both required elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements of the work.

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the outcome. When both sides move for summary judgment, the court must analyze each motion separately and view the evidence favorably to the party opposing that motion.

Statute of Limitations

The court rejected Complex Media’s argument that the discovery rule did not apply. It explained that, in the Second Circuit, a copyright-infringement claim generally accrues when the copyright holder discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the alleged infringement.

The court held that Complex Media had not provided evidence showing that Wolman had inquiry notice—facts that would have prompted a reasonably diligent person to investigate—the alleged infringement before November 2019. The court also stated that a copyright owner does not have a general duty to monitor the internet for unauthorized uses of photographs.

Because discovery had not occurred and the record contained little evidence about when Wolman discovered, or should have discovered, the use, the court could not determine whether the claim was time-barred. The court considered the November 2019 email, but did not decide that the email conclusively established the discovery date. The court therefore denied Complex Media’s motion for summary judgment.

Copyright Liability

BAWAT submitted the copyright registration, the assignment of rights, an article attributing the photograph to Wolman, and comparisons suggesting that the image in Complex Media’s article was identical to the Hendrix Photograph.

Complex Media disputed whether the registration established ownership and argued that it needed discovery concerning Wolman’s Copyright Office submissions, a license agreement with Rolling Stone, and damages. Complex Media also identified potential affirmative defenses, including authorized use, fair use, de minimis use, and challenges to the validity of the copyright registration.

The court concluded that it could not determine as a matter of law that none of those defenses had merit. Complex Media was entitled to discovery and an opportunity to present those defenses. The court therefore denied BAWAT’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied both motions for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions, and the parties were directed to complete a discovery plan and appear for a telephonic status conference.