The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust v. Buzzfeed
The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust, appearing through its trustee, Kristi A. Wareham, Esq. v. Buzzfeed, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-09461-AKH
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust v. Buzzfeed, Inc., Judge Hellerstein denied both summary-judgment motions as premature, allowing discovery to proceed.
The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust and Buzzfeed, Inc.; both parties must proceed without a summary-judgment ruling while discovery addresses the limitations issue, the asserted copyright, and Buzzfeed’s fair-use defense.
What happened
The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust v. Buzzfeed, Inc. concerns the Trust’s claim that Buzzfeed infringed a copyright in a photograph created by Baron Alan Wolman and used in a 2013 article. The Trust alleged that Wolman discovered the use in May 2017 and filed the lawsuit in October 2019.
Buzzfeed argued that the copyright claim was too late because its article was published more than six years before the lawsuit. The Trust argued that the three-year period began when Wolman discovered the alleged infringement. The Trust also sought judgment based on its copyright registration and evidence of infringement, while Buzzfeed said it needed discovery to develop its fair-use defense.
Judge Hellerstein denied both summary-judgment motions as premature. He concluded that discovery was needed to address when the infringement was or should have been discovered, the inconsistency between the copyright-registration numbers identified by the Trust, Buzzfeed’s fair-use defense, and other factual issues.
The detailed version
- The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust v. Buzzfeed · No. 1:19-cv-09461-AKH
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 10, 2022
Background
The Baron Alan Wolman Archives Trust owns copyrights to photographs created by Baron Alan Wolman, who the opinion identifies as a photographer and the first chief photographer for Rolling Stone magazine. The Trust alleged that Buzzfeed, Inc. published one of Wolman’s copyrighted photographs without permission in a January 19, 2013, online article about Janis Joplin.
The opinion states that Wolman allegedly created the photograph in 1968, first published it in 1992, and registered it in
- According to the complaint, Wolman discovered Buzzfeed’s use in May
- The Trust filed the lawsuit on October 13,
- Wolman died on November 2, 2020, and the Trust was substituted as the plaintiff on February 9,
- No discovery had taken place when the parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment.
Buzzfeed’s Motion
Buzzfeed moved for summary judgment, arguing that the copyright claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Trust opposed the motion and maintained that the limitations period did not begin until Wolman discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged infringement in May 2017.
The court held that deciding the limitations issue before discovery was premature. The parties disputed who had the burden of establishing when the limitations period began and whether the Trust could prove when Wolman discovered the alleged infringement. Buzzfeed argued that the complaint’s allegation about Wolman’s discovery was inadmissible hearsay and that Wolman’s death prevented the Trust from offering his direct testimony. The court stated that circumstantial evidence could establish when Wolman discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged infringement, and that discovery could show what level of diligence would have been reasonable under the applicable objective standard.
The court also rejected Buzzfeed’s argument that a Supreme Court decision barred applying a discovery rule in copyright cases. It stated that the Second Circuit had continued to apply its discovery rule after that decision. The court further found that Buzzfeed had not produced evidence sufficient at that stage to establish when the limitations period began. It therefore denied Buzzfeed’s motion for summary judgment.
The Trust’s Motion
The Trust moved for summary judgment, arguing that its copyright was valid and that the existing record established infringement. The court denied the motion because the Trust had not shown that no genuine dispute existed about material facts.
The court noted that the complaint identified registration number VA-1-726-336, while the Trust’s brief and the Wareham Declaration identified registration number VA-2-114-914. The court found that this inconsistency called the status of the asserted copyright into question and prevented the registration from receiving initial evidentiary weight at that stage.
Buzzfeed also stated that it would pursue a fair-use defense. The court explained that Buzzfeed bore the burden of showing that its use of the photograph was fair and that the fair-use inquiry was context-sensitive. Buzzfeed was therefore entitled to develop that defense through discovery before the court could consider summary judgment for the Trust. The court also observed that Buzzfeed might have a statute-of-limitations defense, which likewise could prevent judgment for the Trust.
Disposition
The court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions as premature and ordered the clerk to terminate the docket entries for those motions. The conclusion refers to the motions as motions to dismiss and states that they were denied without prejudice, although the body of the opinion and the order’s title describe them as motions for summary judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.