Creative Photographers, Inc. v. Grupo Televisa S.A.B.

Background

Creative Photographers, Inc. alleged that it held exclusive licenses to copyrights in 21 photographs and that Grupo Televisa used those photographs without authorization on websites. The alleged uses included reproducing, distributing, creating derivative works from, and publicly displaying the images. Creative Photographers brought a direct copyright-infringement claim under the Copyright Act.

The complaint identified Grupo Televisa as a Mexican company located in Mexico and alleged that its websites or websites published by its subsidiary, Editorial Televisa, were accessible to New York users. It also alleged that Grupo Televisa conducted business with New York-based companies, including Univision and TelevisaUnivision, to distribute Spanish-language content. Grupo Televisa submitted declarations stating that it had no office, property, address, or registration in New York; did not control Univision or TelevisaUnivision; and did not own or operate the websites identified by Creative Photographers in the manner alleged.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction means a court’s authority to require a defendant to defend a case in that court. The court considered both general jurisdiction, based on a company’s continuing presence or business in New York, and specific jurisdiction, based on a connection between New York conduct and the particular claim.

The court held that Creative Photographers had not made the required initial showing for general jurisdiction. The complaint’s allegations that Grupo Televisa conducted substantial business in New York were conclusory and were not supported by facts showing that Grupo Televisa itself maintained the necessary presence in New York. The availability of websites to New York users was also insufficient. The court further stated that the presence of a subsidiary or an independent company in New York did not, without more, establish jurisdiction over Grupo Televisa.

The court also rejected the asserted bases for specific jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute. Under the provision covering business transactions, the complaint did not show that the websites containing the photographs were owned or operated by Grupo Televisa, and it did not allege that the websites were sufficiently interactive or used to sell goods, services, or memberships in New York. Even assuming Grupo Televisa purposefully did business with Univision or TelevisaUnivision in New York, Creative Photographers did not show that its infringement claim arose from those transactions. The alleged infringing websites were not identified as being owned by either company, and Grupo Televisa’s declaration that it had not transacted with those companies concerning the disputed content was not rebutted.

The court found no jurisdiction under the provision concerning tortious acts committed in New York because Grupo Televisa had no presence in New York, and Creative Photographers did not identify an agent that committed the alleged infringement there. The court also found no jurisdiction under the provision concerning an out-of-state tort causing injury in New York. It treated the alleged harm as lost licensing opportunities that could be localized where prospective customers were located, rather than as the kind of widespread, difficult-to-localize injury discussed in an earlier copyright case involving works made freely available for internet downloading.

Federal Rule 4(k)(2)

Creative Photographers alternatively argued in a letter that the court could exercise jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), a federal jurisdiction rule for federal-law claims against defendants that are not subject to jurisdiction in any single state but have sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole. The court held that Creative Photographers had not made the required showing because it had not certified, based on currently available information, that Grupo Televisa was not subject to jurisdiction in any state. The court also denied jurisdictional discovery because Creative Photographers had not established an initial jurisdictional case and had not identified a proper basis for such discovery.

Disposition

The court granted Grupo Televisa’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. It dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice to Creative Photographers filing another amended complaint by May 8, 2024. If no amended complaint was filed by that date, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to close the case. Because the court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, it did not reach Grupo Televisa’s other arguments that the complaint failed to state a claim, was untimely, or lacked statutory standing. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied as moot.