Watson v. Kappa Map Group, LLC
Filing
56
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/19/2015. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
IRAN WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:14-CV-100-TWT
KAPPA MAP GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a copyright infringement case. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 48] which is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
I. Background
The Plaintiff, Iran Watson, is a photographer, specializing in real estate and
architectural photography.1 The Defendant, Kappa Map Group, LLC (“Kappa”), is a
Pennsylvania company that publishes and sells road maps to the general public.2 At
issue here is a photograph of the Atlanta Westin Towers created by the Plaintiff on
1
Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 1.
2
Id. ¶¶ 2-3.
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
February 17, 2011.3 After creating the photograph, the Plaintiff added his copyright
management information (“CMI”) to the photograph and posted it to his online Flickr
photostream.4 On February 12, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted the photograph to the
Register of Copyright and received a registration number.5
On June 8, 2012, a Flickr user known as Roberto C., or by the username
“azroby,” posted the photograph to his own Flickr account without any of the
Plaintiff’s CMI.6 In August of 2012, the Defendant used the photograph on a singleprint run of its 2012 Atlanta street map directory.7 The Defendant claims to have
obtained this image from a Flickr account belonging to the user “azroby.”8 The
Defendant further claims that the image was free of CMI at the time it was
downloaded from Flickr.9 Christine Ecarius, the Defendant’s director of marketing,
testified at her deposition that the photograph did have a blurry area that could have
3
Id. ¶ 4.
4
Id. ¶ 5.
5
Id. ¶ 6.
6
Tunnell Decl. ¶ 3.
7
Def.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 10.
8
Id.
9
Id. ¶ 8.
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
-2-
indicated photoshopping to remove CMI.10 The image the Defendant used on the
cover of its map crops out the blurry area, which is the same area where the Plaintiff’s
CMI appeared.11
The Plaintiff initially filed this action on January 13, 2014, claiming copyright
infringement and removal of CMI. The Defendant answered, admitting copyright
infringement but contesting removal of CMI, and counterclaimed for a declaration that
it did not violate the CMI removal statute, as well as for attorney’s fees. On August
20, 2014, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint, which included
a claim for conveying false CMI in place of the claim for removal of CMI. The
Defendant did not contest the motion for leave to amend, but instead, on December
25, 2014, filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the claim for removal of
CMI as well as its counterclaims. This Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to amend the complaint on March 3, 2015.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show no genuine issue of material fact exists and
10
Ecarius Dep. at 73.
11
Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. D.
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
-3-
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.12 The court should view the
evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant.13 The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds to
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.14 The burden then shifts to the
nonmovant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to
show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.15 “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence
supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient
showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”16
III. Discussion
The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for
removal of CMI under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) and on its counterclaims. The Plaintiff
obtained leave to file, and on March 3, 2015, did file, an amended complaint that no
longer contains a claim for violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). The Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment on that claim is therefore denied as moot. The Defendant has
12
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
13
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
14
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
15
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
16
Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990).
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
-4-
made no motion for summary judgment on the new claim for violation of 17 U.S.C.
§ 1202(a) added in the amended complaint. That claim therefore remains to be tried.
The Defendant’s first counterclaim is for a declaratory judgment that it did not
violate 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). In its response to the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, the Plaintiff concedes that based on the evidence available, it will likely be
unable to prove a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).17 Given that the Plaintiff concedes
it will be unable to prove a violation of that provision, the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment on its first counterclaim should be granted.
The Defendant’s second counterclaim is for costs and attorney’s fees related to
the Plaintiff’s claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).18 Under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(5), the
Court has discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a
civil action for removal of copyright management information brought under 17
U.S.C. §§ 1201 or 1202.19 Here, the Defendant did not file its motion for summary
judgment until after the Plaintiff had already filed its motion to amend. Additionally,
any discovery taken regarding the §1202(b) claim will likely be relevant to the
remaining claim for falsifying CMI. Furthermore, this Court finds that the claim for
17
Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., at 12-13.
18
Def.’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim ¶¶ 34-41.
19
17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(5).
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
-5-
removal of CMI was not entirely without merit given that the photograph on the map
cropped out the area where the CMI appeared on the original. As a result, this Court
declines to award attorney’s fees and finds that the Defendant’s second counterclaim
should be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [Doc. 48] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
SO ORDERED, this 19 day of March, 2015.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
T:\ORDERS\14\Watson\mpsjtwt.wpd
-6-
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?