[Cite as Graham v. Mansfield Correctional Inst., 2010-Ohio-2657.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

NATHAN A. GRAHAM 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-08993 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶ 1} On March 4, 2010, the court issued a decision granting plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment on the issue of liability. On April 23, 2010, defendant filed a 

motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B) on the issue of damages. On 

May 14, 2010, plaintiff filed a response. The motion is now before the court on a nonoral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). 

{¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 

{¶ 3} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 

stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 
Case No. 2009-08993 - 2 - ENTRY

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also 

Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the custody and control of defendant 

pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. In its March 4, 2010 decision, the court found defendant 

liable to plaintiff for the loss of what plaintiff described as exclusive commercial rights to 

“87 copyright protected photographs depicting various nude poses of two different 

models.” Plaintiff allegedly obtained such rights in the settlement of a civil suit against a 

former business partner. The court further found that plaintiff is entitled to recover the 

potential commercial value of the photographs, to the extent that plaintiff can establish 

such a value. 

{¶ 5} In support of its motion, defendant filed the affidavit of D. Butts, wherein 

he states: 

{¶ 6} “1. I am currently employed as a full-time employee by the Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) as a Case Manager at [defendant] 

in Mansfield, Ohio. 

{¶ 7} “2. I have personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify to the facts 

contained in this Affidavit. 

{¶ 8} “* * * 

{¶ 9} “4. When I was asked to make copies of [plaintiff’s] original copies of the 

images in question, I personally viewed his original copies. [Plaintiff’s] original copies of 

the images were not actual photographs, but merely color Xerox copies of the 

photographs on eight inch by eleven inch copy paper. There were approximately nine 

images on each of the nine pieces of paper. [Plaintiff’s] original copies were not of high 

quality and the images depicted two young females in various nude poses. 
Case No. 2009-08993 - 3 - ENTRY

{¶ 10} “5. After I made the black and white Xerox copies in question, [plaintiff] 

sent his original copies of the images out of the institution. 

{¶ 11} “6. I personally copied the nine pages of black and white Xerox copies that 

are the subject of this lawsuit. Therefore, I have personal knowledge regarding the 

quality of the nine pages of black and white Xerox copies that are the subject of this 

lawsuit. 

{¶ 12} “7. The quality of the nine pages of black and white Xerox copies in 

question was fair at best. And, in my opinion, the nine pages of black and white Xerox 

copies, which I copied and that are the subject of this lawsuit, were not the quality of 

photographs that one would expect to purchase in the commercial market.” 

{¶ 13} In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff filed his own affidavit wherein 

he states, in part, that the “photocopies lost by [defendant] were clear, sharp images 

reproduced from professional quality prints on 8 1/2" X 11" sheets of photo paper made 

from the original negatives.” 

{¶ 14} In Kathleen Jo Ryan v. Aer Lingus (1994), 878 F.Supp. 461, a 

professional photographer alleged that defendant lost 140 original color transparencies 

provided by plaintiff for prospective publication in defendant’s travel brochure. The 

court found that a bailment relationship existed and that defendant did not exercise 

reasonable care in the handling of the bailed property. 

{¶ 15} With regard to damages, the court determined that plaintiff was entitled to 

the market value of the transparencies. To establish such a value, the court relied 

heavily upon the testimony of experts and, to a lesser degree, plaintiff’s testimony which 

was based upon her experience as a professional photographer for over 20 years. 

Plaintiff and her expert estimated the value of the photography at $1,500 per 

transparency. Defendant’s expert testified that the transparencies did not have market 

value, but that if they did it would be roughly $250-$400 per transparency. Based upon 

this testimony and in consideration of such circumstantial evidence as royalties earned 

on similar transparencies, the court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to $300 per 
Case No. 2009-08993 - 4 - ENTRY

transparency. In making such a determination, the court noted that plaintiff failed to 

present evidence of either established sale or use prices for the transparencies in 

question 

{¶ 16} In this case, defendant asserts that the photocopies it lost have no market 

value beyond $0.45, the cost of the paper upon which they are printed. Plaintiff alleged 

in his complaint that the images in question were original photographs and that they had 

a market value in excess of $25,000. However, as noted above, plaintiff now admits 

that the images were indeed copies and not originals. Plaintiff did not provide the court 

with any evidence of the commercial value of such copies. He provided no expert 

affidavit testimony, and failed to establish any evidentiary basis for his opinion that the 

copies have any commercial value in excess of $0.45. 

{¶ 17} Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the only reasonable 

conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the images in question are 

photocopies of photographs and have a value of $0.45. Accordingly, defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of 

plaintiff in the amount of $0.45. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. Court 

costs are assessed against defendant. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of 

this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 
Case No. 2009-08993 - 5 - ENTRY

Amy S. Brown 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Nathan A. Graham, #384-747 

Mansfield Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 788 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 

MR/cmd

Filed May 28, 2010 

To S.C. reporter June 9, 2010