Proimos v. Madison Property Group, LLC

Background

Alex Proimos, an Australia-based professional photographer, alleged that Madison Property Group, LLC published his photograph of the rooftop bar of the Metropolitan Museum of Art on its website without a license or his permission. Proimos sued under Section 501 of the Copyright Act. Madison Property Group did not answer the complaint, and the Clerk entered a certificate of default.

In an earlier order, the court granted default judgment as to liability because the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations, accepted as true, established copyright infringement. The court denied the original damages request because Proimos had not provided enough evidence to show that the requested $1,450 represented the photograph's fair market licensing value. The court awarded $400 in costs but denied $40 in personal-service costs for lack of supporting evidence, and allowed Proimos to renew his requests.

Damages and Costs

For the renewed application, Proimos sought $499 in actual damages, $40 in additional costs, and post-judgment interest. His attorney submitted Getty Images materials stating that standard editorial rights for a large-size image cost $499. The attorney also stated that Madison Property Group had used the photograph as a large-size image for editorial purposes. The court found this evidence sufficient to support $499 as the fair market value of the defendant's use and granted the request for $499 in actual damages.

Proimos also submitted an invoice supporting the $40 personal-service cost. The court found that evidence sufficient and granted the request for $40 in costs. The court awarded post-judgment interest at the rate specified by federal law, calculated from the date judgment is entered.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for default judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Alex Proimos against Madison Property Group, LLC in the amount of $539 for copyright infringement, plus post-judgment interest, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Because the judgment followed the defendant's default rather than an adversarial determination of the claim, this summary classifies the order as a procedural order under the stated classification rules.