Automated Summary
Key Facts
Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC, a New York LLC owned by freelance photographer Andy Ryan, filed suit against Dagny's Real Estate LLC, a Connecticut real estate brokerage, alleging copyright infringement of architectural and interior design photographs of a property at 340 Stanwich Road, Greenwich, Connecticut. The Plaintiff holds all rights to photos licensed to a real estate agent for limited use until November 5, 2020 (60 days after property sale). Defendant posted the photos on their website to attract customers without authorization. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the DMCA claim in part while denying other claims.
Issues
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendant violated Section 1202(b)(3) of the DMCA by distributing photographs while knowing that copyright management information had been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner, and knowing such distribution would conceal infringement.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a claim under Section 1202(b)(2) of the DMCA, which prohibits distribution of copyright management information with missing or altered information separate and apart from the distribution of the copyrighted works.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendant violated Section 1202(b)(1) of the DMCA by intentionally removing or altering copyright management information from the Plaintiff's photographs, including copyright notices, and distributing the photographs without such information.
- Whether Plaintiff Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC plausibly alleged that Defendant Dagny's Real Estate LLC violated Section 1202(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by knowingly providing false copyright management information, including adding Defendant's own logos, author names, bylines, and attribution to the Plaintiff's copyrighted photographs.
Holdings
- The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1202(b)(2) claim, finding Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendant distributed CMI separate and apart from the distribution of the copyrighted works at issue.
- The Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1202(a) claim under the DMCA, finding plausible allegations that Defendant provided false copyright management information by adding its own logos, author names, and bylines to the Photos.
- The Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1202(b)(1) claim, finding the complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant intentionally removed Plaintiff's copyright management information from the Photos when using them for commercial purposes.
- The Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1202(b)(3) claim, finding the complaint sufficiently alleges Defendant distributed the Photos without Plaintiff's CMI while knowing the removal would conceal infringement.
Remedies
The Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part and denied it in part. The pending Motion at Dkt. No. 23 is terminated. The Court denied dismissal of Plaintiff's DMCA Section 1202(a), 1202(b)(1), and 1202(b)(3) claims, while granting dismissal of the Section 1202(b)(2) claim. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for October 9, 2025 at 12:30 PM.
Legal Principles
The court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. For DMCA claims, the court requires double scienter: (1) knowledge that CMI was removed/altered without authority, and (2) knowledge that distribution would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement. The court found violations of Section 1202(a) (false CMI), Section 1202(b)(1) (intentional removal of CMI), and Section 1202(b)(3) (distribution of works with altered CMI) were plausibly alleged, but dismissed Section 1202(b)(2) claim for lack of separate allegations.
Precedent Name
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp.
- Roe v. St. John's Univ.
- Erickson v. Pardus
- Mango v. Buzzfeed
- Pilla v. Gilat
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal
- Shihab v. Source Digital, Inc.
Cited Statute
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Judge Name
Kenneth M. Karas
Passage Text
- With respect to the second scienter requirement, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's allegations are too conclusory to plausibly allege that Defendant acted with the intent to cause or conceal copyright infringement. On the contrary, drawing inferences in Plaintiff's favor and taking all well-pled allegations as true, the Court finds there is a plausible inference that Defendant acted with the intent to cause or conceal its own infringement. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion on Plaintiff's Section 1202(a) claim.
- For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion at Dkt. No. 23. The Court hereby schedules a telephonic status conference to be held at 12:30 PM on October 9, 2025.
- Finally, the fourth element is met because it is reasonable to infer that Defendant 'knew or had reasonable grounds to know that its removal of the CMI from the [Photos] would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement—specifically, its own alleged infringement of [Plaintiff's copyright] to the [Photos].' Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion on Plaintiff's Section 1202(b)(3) claim.