Petersen v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:21-cv-08827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Petersen v. Diesel Power Gear, Judge Aaron denied defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion, leaving DMCA liability, damages, and infringement facts for a jury.
Shae Petersen and the defendants were affected because the defendants did not obtain partial summary judgment; the DMCA issue, statutory-damages amount, and disputed infringement facts remain for jury consideration.
What happened
Petersen v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC concerns Shae Petersen’s claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and for copyright infringement. The dispute includes photographs containing part of Petersen’s mural and a June 28, 2020 Facebook post.
The defendants asked the court to rule for them on Petersen’s DMCA claim, limit statutory damages to $750, and resolve factual issues about the infringement incidents and how long the Facebook post remained online. They argued, among other things, that their photographer merely framed a photograph without removing or changing copyright information.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. He ruled that a jury could find that the photograph’s framing amounted to removal of copyright information, that the photographer’s intent was a factual question, that a jury must decide the statutory-damages amount, and that other factual disputes also remained.
The detailed version
- Petersen v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08827
- Stewart Aaron
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial that is proper only when there is no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court reviewed the motion before requiring a response from Shae Petersen and stated that no response was necessary or appropriate based on the court’s prior rulings and the record.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim
The defendants sought summary judgment on Petersen’s claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The relevant provision prohibits intentionally removing or altering copyright management information, such as information identifying a copyright.
The defendants argued that Petersen had not shown that copyright management information was removed or altered, or that any removal or alteration was intentional. They contended that Diesel Power Gear’s photographer merely took photographs that did not include the copyright management information. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that intentionally framing a photograph in a particular way was similar to cropping the photograph afterward and therefore could constitute removal. The court also held that the photographer’s intent presented a factual question for the jury. The court denied the motion as to the DMCA claim.
Statutory damages
The defendants also sought a ruling that Petersen’s statutory damages were limited to $750. The court denied that request. Because Petersen demanded a jury trial, the jury must determine the amount of statutory damages within the range allowed by law, unless both sides agree to have the court decide that amount.
Other disputed facts
The court found genuine disputes about the incidents of copyright infringement and how long the June 28, 2020 Facebook post remained online. The court stated that the jury, rather than the court on summary judgment, must resolve those factual issues. The court therefore denied the motion to the extent it sought summary judgment on those matters.
Disposition
The defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The deadline for filing a joint pretrial order remained May 1, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.