Touhey v. Sensory Interactive, Inc
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Touhey v. Sensory Interactive, Judge Woods transferred the copyright case to the Northern District of New York for improper venue.
Max Touhey and Sensory Interactive, Inc.; the case will proceed in the Northern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York.
What happened
In Touhey v. Sensory Interactive, Inc., Max Touhey alleged that Sensory Interactive, Inc. infringed his copyright by displaying his photograph on its website.
The court found that the complaint did not allege that either party resided in the Southern District of New York or that the alleged infringement occurred there. The photograph showed Moynihan Train Hall, and Touhey took the photograph in New York City, but the court said the alleged infringement was Sensory Interactive’s publication of the photograph, not its creation.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ruled that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York and transferred the case to the Northern District of New York under the federal venue statute. The court did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Touhey v. Sensory Interactive, Inc · No. 1:24-cv-00566
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
Max Touhey filed this copyright-infringement action against Sensory Interactive, Inc. on January 26, 2024. Touhey alleged that Sensory Interactive displayed his photograph on its website. The complaint stated that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Sensory Interactive did business there and/or because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there.
The court issued an order requiring Touhey to explain why the case should not be transferred to the Northern District of New York. Touhey responded that events giving rise to the case occurred in the Southern District because the photograph depicted Moynihan Train Hall in New York City and Sensory Interactive allegedly used the photograph to promote its work at the train hall and in a related press release.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a copyright-infringement claim requires proof that the defendant actually copied the plaintiff’s work and that the copying was illegal because of substantial similarity involving protectable elements. The court distinguished between creating the original photograph and the alleged infringing activity. Although Touhey took the photograph in New York City, the court determined that the alleged infringing activity was Sensory Interactive’s publication of the photograph.
The court noted that Touhey’s principal place of business was in Queens County and that Sensory Interactive was alleged to be a Maryland corporation with a corporate office in Albany. The complaint did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District or that events giving rise to the claim occurred there. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is improper if transfer serves the interests of justice, the court concluded that venue did not lie in the Southern District and that the interests of justice favored transfer.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered that the case be transferred to the Northern District of New York, where the court stated that Sensory Interactive resides. The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the case without delay. Touhey was directed to serve a copy of the order on Sensory Interactive and retain proof of service. The opinion addressed venue and did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.