Gaffney v. Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC

Background

Michael Gaffney brought two related actions against Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC, Authentic Brands Group LLC, Roots Of, Inc., doing business as Roots of Fight, and Does 1–10. He alleged that the defendants copied photographs he took of boxer Muhammad Ali without authorization. His claims arose under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He sought statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney’s fees.

The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, which asks the court to decide some issues without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about the relevant facts. In its earlier order, the court ruled on several copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims and granted Gaffney’s motion in part as to statutory damages. It did not grant Gaffney summary judgment on infringement involving alleged non-social-media uses of certain photographs.

Motion for clarification

Gaffney asked the court to clarify whether photographs 101, 105, and 108 were eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The court found a contradiction between two footnotes in its earlier order. It explained that Gaffney alleged infringement of those photographs after the effective date of a copyright registration that the court had already held valid.

The court therefore granted Gaffney’s motion for clarification to the extent it clarified that photographs 101, 105, and 108 are eligible at trial for statutory damages and attorney’s fees if Gaffney proves infringement. The clarification did not itself decide that infringement occurred.

Motion for reconsideration

Gaffney also sought reconsideration of the court’s refusal to grant him summary judgment on infringement involving the defendants’ alleged non-social-media uses of photographs 105, 107, 108, 110, and 129–132.

The court stated that the evidence concerning those uses, the scope of a 2011 license agreement, and royalty payments remained disputed. It also stated that Gaffney had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that would justify changing the earlier decision.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels granted the motion for clarification to the extent stated above and denied the motion for reconsideration to the extent Gaffney was not entitled to summary judgment on the alleged non-social-media uses of the listed photographs. The court stated that the disputed issue remains to be resolved at trial and directed the clerk to close the open motions.