Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08225/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08225-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DRK Photo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing

Company; R.R. Donnelley & Sons

Company, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8225-PCT-NVW

ORDER

Plaintiff DRK Photo has sued Defendants Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing

Company and R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company for fraud and for infringing Plaintiff’s

copyrights in various photographic images, some of which are registered and some of

which are not. Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal (doc. #

27), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims as to all unregistered

images.

I. Legal Standard

To survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is

plausible if it contains sufficient factual matter to permit a reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. Id. Generally, only the face of the complaint

Case 3:09-cv-08225-NVW Document 30 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

and any attached exhibits may be considered. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th

Cir. 2005). However, under the incorporation by reference doctrine, any documents

“whose contents are alleged in [the] complaint and whose authenticity no party questions”

may also be considered. Id. All of the plaintiff’s factual allegations are accepted as true

and the pleadings are construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 1072.

II. Analysis

Subject to limited exceptions, the Copyright Act “requires copyright holders to

register their works before suing for copyright infringement.” Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick,

130 S. Ct. 1237, 1241 (2010) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)). Registration is therefore a

“precondition” to suing for infringement of a particular copyright. Id. Once infringement

of a registered copyright has been established, however, a court may grant injunctive

relief to prevent future infringements of any of the plaintiff’s copyrights, whether

registered or unregistered. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1154 n.1

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 502(a)); Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo, Co., 23 F.3d

1345, 1349 (8th Cir. 1994); Pac. & S. Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1499 n.17 (11th Cir.

1984). Therefore, while an unregistered work cannot provide a basis for courtdetermined liability, it can nevertheless be included within the scope of injunctive relief,

if appropriate, once liability for infringing a registered copyright has been proved.

Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims refer to both registered and unregistered

photographic images. While the registered images may be used to establish Defendants’

liability for copyright infringement, the unregistered images cannot as a matter of law. 

Therefore, the claims must be dismissed to the extent they seek to predicate Defendants’

liability on infringement of the unregistered copyrights. The Court may entertain the

possibility of including the unregistered copyrights within the scope of injunctive and

impoundment relief if and only if (1) Plaintiff successfully proves that Defendants

infringed registered copyrights and (2) injunctive relief and/or impoundment are shown to

be appropriate and lawful. 

Case 3:09-cv-08225-NVW Document 30 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal

(doc. # 27) is granted.

Dated: April 23, 2010.

 

Case 3:09-cv-08225-NVW Document 30 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 3