Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08028/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08028-0/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

Tom Bean, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8028-PCT-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendant’s partial motion to dismiss (doc. 31), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 37), and defendant’s reply (doc. 41). Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for

fraud and some of his claims for copyright infringement. 

I

Plaintiff is a professional photographer who resides in Flagstaff, AZ. Defendant is

a New York corporation that publishes educational textbooks. Plaintiff sold defendant

limited licenses to use a number of plaintiff’s photographs in several publications. The

licenses were limited as to the number of copies published, the distribution area, language,

duration, and form of media. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s photographs

exceeded the use permitted by the terms of the licenses, or in some cases, used photographs

without seeking any permission first. Plaintiff asserts claims for fraud and copyright

infringement, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq. This action is one of four actions that

plaintiff has brought against different publishers in this District. See Bean v. Houghton

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 61 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., et al., No. CV 07-8063; Bean v Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Publishing Co., No. CV 10-8034; and Bean v. Pearson Education Inc., No. CV 11-8030. 

II

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with particularity as required

by Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). To avoid

dismissal, a claim for fraud must state “the time, place, and specific content of the false

representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation.” Sanford v.

MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Edwards v. Marin Park,

Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004)). Defendant argues that plaintiff’s allegations are

insufficient because he has failed to identify specific statements that are

“misrepresentations.”

Plaintiff argues that his fraud claims are limited to the photographs identified in the

solicitation letters from defendant that are attached to plaintiff’s complaint. See Complaint,

ex. C, “Solicitation Letters” (doc. 1-3). Plaintiff contends that these letters provide the “who,

what, when, and where” of the misrepresentations. The letters contain information about the

photographs requested and the print runs for the publications, or in some cases, estimated

print runs. Plaintiff alleges that defendant represented that the photographs would not exceed

the limitations stated in the solicitation letters, and then points to the attached letters as

“examples” that set forth the details of the misrepresentations. Complaint, ¶ 9. Plaintiff later

states in his complaint that defendant’s acts “constitute common-law fraud with respect to

the photographs identified in Exhibit C.” Complaint, ¶ 22. 

We conclude that for the photographs listed in the solicitation letters, plaintiff has

adequately stated a claim for fraud. Each letter provides the time, place, and content of the

misrepresentation, and the identity of the parties to the misrepresentation. “Reading these

letters in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], these statements could be construed as

representations that [defendant] would not exceed the licenses by printing more than” the

stated number of copies. Wood v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Pub. Co., 569 F. Supp. 2d

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 61 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

1135, 1140 (D. Colo. 2008). 

However, plaintiff has not adequately pled a claim for fraud in relation to all

photographs for which he has not provided solicitation letters. Plaintiff recognizes as much

by clarifying that he brings his fraud count only with respect to the photographs identified

in the solicitation letters. Complaint, ¶ 22. As plaintiff realizes, the general allegations in

his complaint are insufficient under Rule 9(b) to support a fraud claim for the other

photographs identified in Exhibits A and B. Accordingly, we accept plaintiff’s assertion that

he has not brought claims for fraud with respect to the photographs not identified in Exhibit

C. 

Defendant also argues that all the fraud claims should be dismissed because plaintiff

has not stated the factual basis for his allegation that defendant knew its actual uses would

exceed the permission requested and that defendant intended to obtain access at a lower cost.

We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations are adequate because under Rule 9(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P., knowledge and intent may be alleged generally. The only aspects of fraud “that require

particularized allegations are the factual circumstances of the fraud itself.” Sanford v.

MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 558 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Flowers v. Carville, 310

F.3d 1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002) (“That she averred the required state of mind generally,

without alleging corroborating evidence, does not defeat her complaint.”). Plaintiff alleges

that at the time defendant solicited the licences, it knew its use would exceed the permission

requested and that it intended by its misrepresentation to obtain access at a lower cost than

it would have paid had defendant been honest about its intended usage. Complaint, ¶¶

10–11. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage.

Defendant also argues that the fraud claims fail because the allegedly false

representations did not relate to an existing fact or past event. A claim for fraud generally

cannot lie where the allegedly false or misleading representation relates to future prospects

or performance. See Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 96, 163 P.3d 1034, 1046 (Ct.

App. 2007) (citing Law v. Sidney, 47 Ariz. 1, 4–5, 53 P.2d 64, 66–67 (1936)). However, a

forward-looking statement may be actionable where defendant made the statement with

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 61 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

actual knowledge that the prediction will not be met. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

knew at the time it made the requests that its use would exceed the permission it requested.

Complaint, ¶ 10. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendant made forward looking

predictions about print runs with actual knowledge that they would be incorrect 

Defendant argues that plaintiff cannot state a claim for fraudulent concealment

because defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty. Motion to Dismiss at 11. However, plaintiff

states that he has not asserted a claim for fraudulent concealment. Response at 7. We

therefore do not address this argument. 

We therefore deny defendant’s motion to dismiss the fraud claims as to the

photographs identified in Exhibit C of plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is moot as to the

other photographs because plaintiff does not assert fraud claims related to them. 

III

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement of certain

photographs fail because the photographs were never properly registered. Plaintiff may not

bring an action for infringement until he has registered or preregistered the work. 17 U.S.C.

§ 411(a). According to defendants, Corbis Corporation, a stock photo agency, filed certain

of plaintiff’s copyright registrations. In a separate action, this Court has already found those

registrations to be invalid because Corbis did not comply with the registration requirements

of 17 U.S.C. § 409. See Bean v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., No. CV 10-

8034, 2010 WL 3168624 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2010). The Court concluded that Corbis’s

registration of six compilations containing thousands of photographs by different authors was

not effective in registering the individual works in the compilations to the individual authors.

Corbis failed to provide the titles of the individual photographs, the names of the all of the

authors, and the connection between individual author and photograph. Because Corbis did

not comply with the registration requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 409, plaintiff’s claims for

infringement failed as a matter of law. Additionally, in a separate action in this District, the

Court adopted the ruling in Bean v. Houghton Mifflin and concluded that with respect to the

images in the six compilations, plaintiff failed to allege that the images are properly

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 61 Filed 08/03/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

registered. Bean v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. CV 11-8030 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2011). See also

Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., 712 F. Supp. 2d

84, 95 (S.D.N.Y 2010) (registration of compilation by Corbis that did not include names of

all authors did not effectively register the individual images). We also adopt the ruling that

this Court has now made twice. Because the registrations are invalid, plaintiff cannot allege

registration of the copyrights for the images in the six compilations, and therefore plaintiff

cannot state a claim for infringement with respect to those photographs. 

IV

IT IS ORDERED GRANTINGIN PAR T AND DENYING IN PART defendant’s

motion to dismiss (doc. 31). 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for

copyright infringement with respect to the images contained in the Corbis compilations. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for

fraud.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 61 Filed 08/03/11 Page 5 of 5