Poppington, LLC v. Brooks

Background

Horn and Poppington brought a copyright-infringement claim concerning a photograph allegedly taken by Horn on the set of the film Mafietta. They alleged that Brooks used the photograph on the cover of Mafietta: The Trilogy without authorization. Brooks disputed that she copied Horn’s photograph and argued that she owned it because it was either a work made for hire or a derivative work of the Mafietta film.

Horn was hired to work on the film set and was paid $600, although the parties disputed whether her work included taking photographs. No written agreement concerning the photography was alleged. The parties also disputed whether Horn provided the photograph to Brooks before the lawsuit and whether Horn ever published it.

Court’s Analysis

The court first noted that the complaint identified an earlier book, Mafietta: Rise of a Female Boss, rather than Mafietta: The Trilogy, the book whose cover was actually at issue. Because Horn had not worked with Brooks before the earlier book was published, the infringement allegation as written was factually impossible. The court said this was enough to dismiss the sole claim, but treated the complaint as alleging infringement involving Mafietta: The Trilogy because the attached cover image made the intended claim clear.

On the copyright claim, the court explained that infringement requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. The court found that the parties’ evidence showed substantial similarity, but there was no direct evidence of copying. It also found a genuine dispute about whether Brooks had access to Horn’s photograph and noted that the book-cover image could have come from a still image in the film’s raw footage rather than from Horn’s photograph. Thus, plaintiffs could not establish copying as an undisputed matter.

The court then held that Brooks owned the disputed photograph as a derivative work. A derivative work is a work based on and adapted from a preexisting work. The court concluded that Horn’s photograph depicted Clarke, including distinctive aspects of the character’s cinematic depiction in the Mafietta film. Because Brooks was the film’s sole author and copyright holder, the court held that she had the exclusive right to make or authorize derivative works, including the photograph.

The court rejected Brooks’s separate work-for-hire theory. It found no sufficient evidence that Horn was Brooks’s employee, and no signed written agreement establishing that the photograph was a commissioned work made for hire. That conclusion did not change the result because the court accepted Brooks’s derivative-work theory.

The court also held that plaintiffs could not recover statutory damages because the alleged infringement began before Horn’s April 2020 copyright registration. It further found that the record contained no support for actual damages.

Counterclaims and Disposition

Brooks asserted conversion counterclaims under New York and North Carolina law. The court did not decide which law applied because disputed facts remained, including whether Brooks hired Horn to take photographs and whether Brooks had received the photographs. The cross-motions for summary judgment on those conversion claims were denied.

Brooks also sought summary judgment on a copyright-infringement counterclaim. The court granted that motion in part, declaring Brooks the owner of the disputed photograph and enjoining Horn and Poppington from again attempting to register it. The court denied the motion otherwise.

The court denied plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion in full. It granted Brooks’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ infringement claim and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The order stated that the parties must confer with the court about setting a trial on the remaining counterclaim issues or informing the court that those claims were dismissed so final judgment could be entered.