DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Companies Incorporated et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 350.00, receipt number 0970-6771145, filed by DRK Photo. (Submitted by Christopher Seidman). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Index, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(HLA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher Seidman (CS-7816)
Harmon & Seidman LLC
101 S. Third Street, Suite 265
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

10

Amanda Bruss
Harmon & Seidman LLC
8010 E. 29th Avenue
Denver, CO 80238
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff DRK Photo

7
8
9

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14
15

DRK Photo, a sole proprietorship,

16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

COMPLAINT

18

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
19 and John Doe Printers 1-10,
20

No.
(jury trial demanded)

Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff DRK Photo (“DRK”) for its Complaint against Defendant The McGrawHill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) and John Doe Printers 1-10 alleges:

1

STATEMENT OF ACTION

2

1.

3

of all copyrights to certain photographs originally licensed for limited use by Defendant

4

McGraw-Hill, against Defendants for uses of Plaintiff’s photographs without its authority

5

or permission.

This is an action for copyright infringement brought by Plaintiff DRK, the holder

6

PARTIES

7

2.

8

licensing photographic images to publishers, including McGraw-Hill. DRK Photo is a

9

sole proprietorship owned and operated since 1981 by Daniel R. Krasemann, a United

Plaintiff DRK Photo is a Sedona, Arizona stock photography agency engaged in

10

States citizen and a resident of Sedona, Arizona.

11

3.

12

and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business

13

in New York, New York. McGraw-Hill sells and distributes textbooks via its employees

14

and agents in Arizona and throughout the United States, including the publications and

15

ancillary materials containing Plaintiff’s photographs.

16

4.

17

and ancillary materials, whose identities are known to Pearson but unknown to Plaintiff.

McGraw-Hill is a publisher of educational textbooks and a corporation organized

John Doe Printers 1-10 are the printers of some or all of the publications in suit

18

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19

5.

20

interest under the copyright laws of the United States.

21

6.

22

U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1338 (copyright).

23

7.

24

28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(a).

This is an action for injunctive relief, statutory damages, monetary damages, and

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b) and

25
26

-2-

1

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

2

8.

3

photographic images (“Photographs”) depicted in Exhibit A. The Photographs have been

4

registered with the United States Copyright Office or complete applications, fees, and

5

deposits for copyright registration have been received by the Copyright Office in

6

compliance with the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

7

9.

8

the Photographs in numerous educational publications. The permissions DRK granted

9

McGraw-Hill were expressly limited by number of copies, geographic distribution area,

10

language, duration, and media as set forth in Exhibit A. Typical licenses are attached as

11

Exhibit B.

12

10.

13

representations to DRK that the use of the Photographs would not exceed the limitations

14

contained in its license requests.

15

11.

16

requests in establishing its license fees.

17

12.

18

terms of the limited licenses listed in Exhibit A.

19

13.

20

permission in publications not yet identified.

21

14.

22

McGraw-Hill had a duty in equity and good conscience to disclose those uses to DRK.

23

This is especially so because McGraw-Hill knew precisely when its uses of the

24

Photographs exceeded the applicable license limitations, but DRK had no such

25

knowledge nor any reason to assume McGraw-Hill was being deceitful in the uses it was

26

making of the Photographs.

Plaintiff DRK is the owner and exclusive copyright holder of the attached

Between 1997 and 2009, DRK sold McGraw-Hill limited licenses to use copies of

DRK granted the limited use licenses in response to McGraw-Hill’s

DRK relied on the truthfulness of the express limitations contained in the license

Upon information and belief, McGraw-Hill exceeded the permitted uses under the

Upon information and belief, McGraw-Hill used the Photographs without any

When McGraw-Hill copied and distributed the Photographs without authorization,

-3-

1

15.

2

McGraw-Hill’s infringements were concealed.

3

16.

4

limitations in at least 52 DRK’s licenses (see Exhibit C and Exhibit D1 hereto) and that it

5

should have requested and paid for permission to print more copies than it actually

6

obtained. These specific print-run issues were resolved in early 2011, with payment to

7

DRK of $818,689.71 (see Exhibit E). DRK brings no claims against McGraw-Hill for

8

exceeding the print run limits in those licenses, assuming McGraw-Hill accurately

9

disclosed its print quantities. This suit is limited to overprinting of DRK invoices for

10

which no print runs, or inaccurate print runs, were disclosed by McGraw-Hill, uses by

11

McGraw-Hill beyond other license parameters (size, number of uses within a publication,

12

geographic distribution area, electronic use, duration, and language uses), and wholly

13

unlicensed uses unrelated to an invoice.

14

17.

McGraw-Hill’s concealment was effective and worked as intended. For years,

In 2010, McGraw-Hill admitted to DRK that it had exceeded the print run

The exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this complaint by this reference.

15

COUNT I

16

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST MCGRAW-HILL

17

18.

18

in each paragraph above.

19

19.

20

infringements of Plaintiff’s copyrights in the Photographs in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501

21

et seq.

22

20.

23

Photographs.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained

The foregoing acts of McGraw-Hill constitute direct, contributory and/or vicarious

Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of McGraw-Hill’s unauthorized use of the

24
25
26

1

DRK does not concede the print runs McGraw-Hill disclosed are accurate, and reserves the
right to verify through discovery.

-4-

1

COUNT II

2

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST JOHN DOE PRINTERS 1-10

3

21.

4

each paragraph above.

5

22.

6

constitute direct, contributory and/or vicarious infringements of DRK’s copyrights in the

7

Photographs, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 et. seq.

8

23.

9

by John Doe Printers 1-10.

DRK incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in

The foregoing acts of John Doe Printers 1-10 in printing the publications in suit

DRK suffered damages as a result of the unauthorized printing of its Photographs

10
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following:

12

1.

13

from copying, displaying, distributing, selling or offering to sell Plaintiff’s Photographs

14

described in this Complaint and Plaintiff’s photographs not included in suit.

15

2.

16

Photographs used in violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights as well as all related

17

records and documents and, at final judgment, destruction or other reasonable disposition

18

of the unlawfully used Photographs, including digital files and any other means by which

19

they could be used again by Defendant without Plaintiff’s authorization.

20

3.

21

Photographs or, where applicable and at Plaintiff’s election, statutory damages.

22

4.

Reasonable attorney’s fees.

23

5.

Court costs, expert witness fees, interest and all other amounts authorized under

24

law.

25

6.

A permanent injunction against Defendant and anyone working in concert with it

As permitted under 17 U.S.C. § 503, impoundment of all copies of Plaintiff’s

Actual damages and all profits derived from the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

26

-5-

1
2

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues permitted by law.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DATED: May 15, 2012
Plaintiff DRK Photo,
by its attorneys,
s/ Christopher Seidman
Christopher Seidman (CS-7816)
Harmon & Seidman LLC
101 S. Third St., Suite 265
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
s/ Amanda L. Bruss
Amanda L. Bruss
Harmon & Seidman LLC
8010 E. 29th Avenue
Denver, CO 80238
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-6-