Minden Pictures, Inc. v. Complex Media, Inc.

Background

Minden Pictures, a wildlife and nature photography licensing agency, alleged that it was the exclusive licensee of a photograph by nature photographer Gary Ellis. It claimed that Complex Media reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, and created a derivative work from the photograph on Complex Media’s website without a license. Minden alleged that it discovered the photograph on the website in March 2022. The court found that the complaint’s hyperlink indicated that the photograph had been uploaded in July 2012, and Minden did not dispute that date.

Minden filed the action on May 18, 2022. After Complex Media moved to dismiss, Minden filed an amended complaint, and Complex Media relied on its earlier motion.

Legal Standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. A court may dismiss on that basis when a statutory deadline clearly bars the claim based on the complaint and materials the court may consider.

The Discovery Rule

The Copyright Act requires a civil infringement action to be filed within three years after the claim accrued. The Second Circuit applies a discovery rule under which a copyright claim accrues when the copyright holder actually discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the infringement.

Minden argued that its claim accrued when it discovered the photograph in March 2022. The court rejected that argument. It relied on the reasoning of a prior related proceeding involving Minden Pictures, in which the court concluded that a reasonable copyright holder with Minden’s litigation history should have discovered alleged online infringements within the statutory period. Here, the court noted that Minden had filed more than 100 cases, used technology companies to search the internet for infringement, and described itself as working diligently to detect unauthorized uses. The court concluded that it was not plausible that Minden would not have discovered the photograph until nearly ten years after its alleged posting.

The Separate-Accrual Rule

Minden also argued that a separate three-year period began each time the photograph was transmitted from Complex Media’s servers to a user’s computer. The court rejected that theory. It explained that successive violations may produce separate claims, but the continued presence of a work online does not by itself create a new violation. The court concluded that publication or distribution occurred when the photograph was posted on the website, not each time a user viewed it.

The court also noted that Minden had not alleged that anyone other than Minden viewed the photograph after its original publication. It declined to follow the only cited decision supporting Minden’s transmission theory because no district court had followed that reasoning and other courts had rejected it.

Disposition

The court concluded that the only publication reasonably inferable from the complaint occurred in July 2012. Because that date was outside the three-year limitations period, and because Minden should have discovered the alleged infringement earlier, the court held that the claim was barred. Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Complex Media’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed Minden Pictures one opportunity to amend the complaint within 30 days, provided it had a good-faith basis to do so.