Reiffer v. NYC Luxury Limousine Ltd

Background

Paul Reiffer, a professional photographer, created and registered a photograph of the New York City skyline framed by the Brooklyn Bridge and the East River. The photograph included his name in visible text as copyright management information. NYC Luxury Limousine Ltd. used an altered version of the photograph as the main background image on its website without permission. The company cropped the image so that Reiffer’s name was no longer visible and added a black dot to the image.

Reiffer moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The company conceded liability in its opposition brief but disputed the amount of damages and opposed an award of attorney’s fees. The company also failed to respond on time to Reiffer’s requests for admission; the court treated the matters in those requests as conclusively established for purposes of the motion. The court also found that several factual assertions and defenses by the company lacked evidentiary support.

Rulings on Liability

The court granted Reiffer’s motion in part as to liability. For copyright infringement, the court found that Reiffer owned a valid registered copyright and that the company copied and displayed the photograph without authorization. Those facts established the elements of copyright infringement.

For the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim, the court found that the photograph contained copyright management information—Reiffer’s name—and that the company displayed the photograph after removing that information. Because the company saw Reiffer’s name and intentionally removed it before posting the image, the court found the company liable for violating the Act.

Damages

Reiffer elected statutory damages under the Copyright Act rather than actual damages and profits. The court found that the infringement was willful because the company saw Reiffer’s name and intentionally removed it. Considering the licensing value of $8,500, the company’s conduct, its lack of cooperation in discovery, and the need for deterrence, the court awarded three times the licensing fee: $25,500.

The court also awarded $5,000 in statutory damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It described that amount as being at the lower end of the possible range and stated that it avoided duplicating compensation for the same conduct while providing deterrence. The total statutory-damages award was therefore $30,500.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The court ruled that Reiffer was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under both the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It found that the company’s litigation position was objectively unreasonable because the company asserted unsupported defenses, failed to comply promptly with discovery obligations, and ultimately conceded the elements establishing liability. The court also considered the company’s dismissive approach to the litigation and the deterrent purpose of a fee award.

The court did not set the amount of fees and costs in this opinion. Instead, it directed Reiffer to file a supplemental motion supported by an affidavit, contemporaneous time records, and a spreadsheet detailing the requested fees and costs. The court directed the clerk to terminate the summary-judgment motion at Docket No. 34.