Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
- against -
In
this
copyright
infringement
and
breach
of
contract
on
the
Internet.
Defendant
Benjamin
Lagerstrom,
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
12(b)(6)
and
for
sanctions
For the
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Compl.), alleges the
following facts.
the
alias
Little
Lion,
Tiny
Tiger.
Compl.
56.
The
and
operates
the
corporate
defendant
September
of
2014,
Frye
Dianacollv,
Inc.
Id. 10.
and
Lagerstrom
reached
an
Id.
provide,
participation
inter
credit
to
alia,
the
meals,
crew,
Id. 24,
In exchange, plaintiff
a
and
makeup
provide
artist,
a
DVD
of
and
the
Crew Agreement at 1.
that
future
paid
work
will
result
from
the
help
in
Id.
The Crew
other
work.
than
Id.
as
an
example/demonstration
of
the
companys
Agreement at 2.
give
credits
Lagerstrom
as
Director
shooting
of
of
and
Compl. 23.
Homeless
Photography
commenced
Id. 4142.
and
was
In October of
film,
the
relationship
between
Frye
and
Lagerstrom
Id. 49.
The
51,
52.
Director.
In
this
Id. 50.
video,
Lagerstrom
labeled
Id.
himself
as
the
Producer
as
Little
Id. 52.
Order
accusing
to
plaintiff
plaintiff
interested
in
and
of
the
staff
falsely
Homeless
at
Showtime
representing
project,3
Networks
that
accusing
Inc.,
Showtime
plaintiff
was
of
Defendant sent
Id. 54.
Meanwhile,
editing
of
in
December
Homeless,
registration.
of
2014,
plaintiff
having
applied
completed
for
his
copyright
Ex. A.
Between April and June of 2015, defendant published three
additional videos on the websites Vimeo and YouTube.
62.
Id. 60
Historia
de
Jack
Documental
de
Hernandez
--
Veneno,
Benjamin
each
and
La
Irish
incorporated
con
Historia
Ric
footage
de
Flair
from
Jack
y
Veneno.
Relampago
Homeless
to
Id.
The
June
Id.
22,
2015,
plaintiff,
through
counsel,
Id. 63.
sent
Defendant
on
Id. 64.
YouTube
entitled
Margaritas
Millions
Teaser
that
industry
Id. 68.
and
accuse
plaintiff
and
Showtime
of
YouTube and Vemeo, id. 65, 67, 70, some of which Lagerstrom
opposed, id. 69.
and
proposed
counterclaims.
amended
we
defenses,
and
answers,
struck
defendants
to
the
complaint
and
operative
litigation.
motion
ECF
No.
or
43.
pleading
at
Defendants
this
stage
Operative
of
the
Motion
to
which
we
address
here.
Plaintiff
responded
by
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
On
motion
to
dismiss
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
However, [t]hreadbare
In
It is well
liberally
and
arguments
that
suggest.
they
interpreted
to
Triestman
raise
v.
the
Fed.
strongest
Bureau
of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted; emphasis removed).
17 U.S.C.
106; see Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d
Cir. 2010).
two
elements
must
be
proven:
(1)
ownership
of
valid
Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991)).
The
presentation
of
certificate
of
copyright
at 267.
Here, plaintiff adequately alleges copyright infringement.
As exhibits to the Complaint, he submits copyright registration
certificates
entitling
for
him
original work.
to
the
a
text
and
motion
presumption
of
picture
valid
of
Homeless,
copyright
for
an
He
provides
the
titles,
dates
of
publication,
and
Internet
videos,
filming
of
composed
at
Homeless,
least
in
obviating
part
any
of
footage
question
from
that
the
original
of
these
arguments
is
advanced
with
sufficient
therefore
context.
would
not
be
appropriate
to
address
in
this
As noted, the Crew Agreement states just the opposite, that all
footage and material being part of this agreement is the property of the
Producer and that defendants will not distribute or display such footage in
any way other than as an example/demonstration of their work.
Crew
Agreement at 1.
We take defendants argument to be that his videos are
merely demonstrations of his work.
Plaintiff has adequately alleged,
however, that given the custom and practice in the motion picture industry,
none of defendants videos is correctly viewed as an example/demonstration
in the sense of a teaser, trailer or reel sample. Compl. 26, 51.
The
First Investors
Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 162, 168 (2d Cir.
1998).
binding
that
plaintiff
had
fully
performed
the
The parties fail to address what law governs their contract. Based on
the Complaint and the briefing on the motion to dismiss, it appears that Frye
and Lagerstrom are residents of New York, that the Crew Agreement was
negotiated and executed in New York, and that Homeless was filmed in New
York. Therefore, we presume New York law applies.
10
his
Memorandum
the
Court,
submissions
to
plaintiffs
counsel,
and
Reply,
defendant
Showtime,
and
and
asserts
others
in
that
have
his
other
plaintiff,
engaged
in
C. Sanctions
Having
infringement
concluded
and
that
breach
of
plaintiffs
contract
claims
survive
for
Rule
copyright
12(b)(6)
denied.
We appreciate that the relationship between plaintiff and
defendant has become acrimonious, and that each feels he was
11
repair
or
resolve
this
However,
the Court's
rela t 1onship,
but
to
to
act1on,
whether
thoughtfully
given
the1r
settlement
cont1nued
litigation.
pursuing the
consider
creative
of
settlement
this
If
the merits
and
financial
route,
parties
are
1 ega 1
We urge the
and value
of
this
interests,
and
the
role is not
evaluate
release,
both
sensible
than
interested
in
case
III. CONCLUSION
request
for
The parties
should inform the Court within ten days if they wish a referral
to a Magistrate Judge for settlement.
Dated:
L~-~
12
Benjamin F Lagerstrom
529 W. 29th Street PHD
New York, NY 10001
13