Pires v. UOB Holdings Inc.

Background

Rui Pires, a professional photographer who licenses photographs for a fee, claimed ownership of the photograph at issue. He published the photograph in 2012 with a watermark containing his name. The opinion states that the U.S. Copyright Office issued a registration for the photograph with an effective date of February 13, 2020.

UOB Holdings (USA) Inc. published the photograph on its commercial website without Pires’s permission or a license. In doing so, it cropped out the watermark, removing information identifying Pires as the author. The opinion does not state when UOB Holdings published the photograph.

Pires served UOB Holdings with the summons and complaint, but the company did not answer, appear, or request more time to respond. The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default. Pires’s first request for default judgment was terminated so he could provide additional proof. He then renewed the motion and served the required materials on UOB Holdings.

Default Judgment Standard

The court explained that when a defendant fails to defend after being properly served and default is entered, the court may enter default judgment. It considered whether UOB Holdings’s failure to respond was willful, whether the company had a potentially valid defense, and whether denying judgment would unfairly harm Pires.

The court found that these factors favored Pires. UOB Holdings’s failure to respond supported a finding of willfulness. Because UOB Holdings did not answer, the court could not determine whether it had a valid defense. The court also found that Pires would be harmed and would have no other recourse if default judgment were denied.

Liability

For the copyright-infringement claim, the court found that Pires established ownership of a valid copyright and that UOB Holdings reproduced and publicly displayed an unauthorized copy of the photograph on its website.

For the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim, the court found that the watermark contained copyright-management information because it identified Pires as the photograph’s author and copyright holder. The court accepted as true the allegations that UOB Holdings intentionally and knowingly cropped out the watermark. It concluded that Pires established liability under the Act’s provision prohibiting intentional removal or alteration of copyright-management information.

Damages and Fees

The court awarded $1,075 in actual copyright damages. Pires had not previously licensed the photograph, but he supported his estimate with evidence that Getty Images charged $1,075 to license a similar color photograph of the same subject. The court found this evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable market value without undue speculation.

The court also awarded $5,000 in statutory damages for one violation involving removal of the watermark. It concluded that damages under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act could both be collected because the statutes protect different interests. The court considered the circumstances of the violation, the uncertainty of actual damages in a default case, and the need for deterrence.

The court awarded $735 in attorney’s fees for 2.1 hours of work at an hourly rate of $350. It also awarded $440 in costs, consisting of the court filing fee and personal-service expenses. Finally, it awarded post-judgment interest calculated under the federal statutory method, beginning on the date judgment was entered.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Pires’s motion for default judgment. The award consisted of $1,075 in actual damages, $5,000 in statutory damages, $735 in attorney’s fees, and $440 in costs. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.