Reginald Hart v. Amazon.com, Incorporated
Filing
Filed opinion of the court by Judge Posner. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge and Joel M. Flaum, Circuit Judge. [6809544-1] [6809544] [16-2793]
Case: 16-2793
Document: 17
Filed: 01/06/2017
Pages: 4
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 16‐2793
REGINALD HART,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant‐Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 15 C 1217 — Rubén Castillo, Chief Judge.
____________________
SUBMITTED DECEMBER 21, 2016 — DECIDED JANUARY 6, 2017
____________________
Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and FLAUM, Circuit
Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. A very unusual case, this. The
plaintiff, unrepresented by counsel (the district judge had
recruited counsel initially, who, however, upon discovering
that the suit was groundless, requested and was allowed to
withdraw from the case, leaving the plaintiff to proceed pro
se), has sued Amazon, claiming that it permitted third par‐
ties to advertise on its website six counterfeit copies of books
Case: 16-2793
2
Document: 17
Filed: 01/06/2017
Pages: 4
No. 16‐2793
called Vagabond Natural and Vagabond Spiritual that the plain‐
tiff had written and self‐published (that is, published himself
rather than handed to a publisher). According to his com‐
plaint he had written and published these books in order “to
raise money and bring an end to vagabondage” by detailing
his experiences as a vagabond (a homeless man). After self‐
publishing Vagabond Spiritual, however, he had decided not
to release it to the public, yet it too had been advertised on
Amazon.
He claims to have been surprised and angered to discov‐
er that hard‐cover copies of both books were being adver‐
tised on Amazon by booksellers to whom he had not (he
says) sent any copies of his books. He says he learned that a
cousin of his had purchased a copy of each of his books ad‐
vertised (without his authorization) on Amazon. He has
sued Amazon on a variety of grounds, but all amounting to
alleging a theft of his intellectual property after Amazon re‐
fused his repeated requests to remove the advertisements for
the books from Amazon’s website (though eventually, re‐
lenting, Amazon did remove them). He insists that legiti‐
mate sales of his books would have generated “millions of
dollars for Amazon” and allowed him “to end homelessness
[and not only for himself] both in the U.S. and abroad,” but
that instead Amazon “forcefully exploited” his books by
counterfeiting them “for its own commercial use.”
The eventual removal of Hart’s titles from Amazon’s list‐
ings did not deter him from pressing federal and state claims
in this lawsuit ranging from copyright infringement and aid‐
ing and abetting counterfeiting to intentional infliction of
emotional distress. He claims to have examined the copy of
each book purchased by his cousin and determined that all
Case: 16-2793
No. 16‐2793
Document: 17
Filed: 01/06/2017
Pages: 4
3
of them were unauthorized reproductions. He claims to be
certain of this because genuine copies (that is, copies that he
had produced himself) would bear “indicia of authenticity
known only to him”—namely, his fingernail indentations on
the covers.
The district judge evaluated Hart’s complaint on a mo‐
tion by Amazon to dismiss and concluded that it fails to
state a claim. He reasoned that Hart had failed to make a
plausible allegation that Amazon had copied his works (an
expensive undertaking) rather than simply provided the
platform through which third‐party vendors sold authentic,
original copies of the books—probably authorized by the au‐
thor to do so.
There are self‐published books advertised on Amazon
but also books published by Amazon—the author sends his
or her manuscript to Amazon, which publishes it online and
advertises it. (An example is a novel by Heather Refetoff
called Quartet: A Novel in Two Parts (2012).) One might have
expected Hart to send his manuscripts to Amazon to publish
online, but he didn’t; the books bearing his titles that are ad‐
vertised on Amazon are hard copies only, rather than online
copies, and are almost certainly his self‐published books be‐
cause they are identical to those books. Only six copies of the
books were sold by Amazon.
There is more that is wrong with his case. There is no
plausible allegation that if (a big if) the books sold by Ama‐
zon are counterfeits, Amazon was aware of the fact. Amazon
provided the platform on which third‐party sellers sold the
secondhand books and shipped them directly to buyers, but
can’t be expected to have verified the authenticity of the au‐
thor or authors of them. His only explanation for calling
Case: 16-2793
4
Document: 17
Filed: 01/06/2017
Pages: 4
No. 16‐2793
them counterfeits is the absence of his fingernail indenta‐
tions from the books, yet he did not give the court copies of
the books on which he had scratched those indentations. In‐
stead he provided the court with photographs of the pur‐
ported “real” and “fake” books—but the two types of book
are in all respects identical. Neither reveals any fingernail
marks.
Granted, there is counterfeiting of books (especially text‐
books), in which Amazon may be involved to the extent of
advertising and selling such books, though without neces‐
sarily knowing they’re counterfeit. See, e.g., Eliza Green,
“The Problem of Fake Books on Amazon,” May 9, 2012,
http://elizagreenbooks.com/the‐problem‐of‐fake‐books‐on‐
amazon/ (visited Dec. 24, 2016, as was the next website cit‐
ed). But counterfeiting can’t be presumed. For example, “all
of the apparent copycat books that Fortune found on Ama‐
zon were made through CreateSpace, which is a division of
Amazon.” Mario Aguilar, “Amazon Is Overrun With a
Plague of Bestseller Knockoffs,” April 16, 2012,
http://gizmodo.com/5902283/amazon‐is‐overrun‐with‐a‐plag
ue‐of‐fake‐books. Hart’s obscure self‐published titles are a
far cry from the pirated bestsellers regularly found on Ama‐
zon, and his assertion that the Internet giant must have un‐
dertaken the cost of reproducing his hardcover books be‐
cause they were “not sourced” by him and lack his nail in‐
dentations (when neither do his self‐published books, if one
may judge from the photos) doesn’t meet even a minimum
standard of plausibility. The judgment of the district court
dismissing his suit with prejudice is therefore
AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?