UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-61883-RAR

PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC., f/k/a 

Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PERRY WINGS PLUS, INC.,

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Prepared Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife 

Marketing & Communications Co., Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Final Judgment 

(“Motion”) [ECF No. 14], filed on December 8, 2022. The Court has considered the Motion, has 

noted the Clerk’s default against Defendant Perry Wings Plus, Inc., and is otherwise fully advised 

in the premises. Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concludes 

that Plaintiff has met its burden for the entry of final default judgment as to Defendant. Plaintiff 

has also met its burden of showing that it is entitled to permanent injunctive relief against 

Defendant as specified herein. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED as set forth herein. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is in the business of licensing high-end, professional photographs for the food 

industry. Plaintiff generally operates on a subscription basis whereby it charges its clients 

(generally, grocery stores, restaurant chains, food service companies, etc.) a minimum monthly fee 

of $999.00 for access to its library of professional photographs. Compl. ¶ 8. Plaintiff’s standard 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 17

licensing terms require a minimum of a twelve month licensing commitment to avoid scenarios 

whereby a licensee pays for one month of access, downloads the entire library of 20,000+ 

photographs, and immediately terminates the license agreement. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff’s business 

model relies on its recurring monthly subscription service to maintain its portfolio. Id.

Plaintiff has numerous paying subscribers paying monthly subscription fees ranging from 

$999.00/month to $2,500.00/month (depending on the number of end users for which Plaintiff’s 

photographs are to be used). Id. Generally stated, the bulk of Plaintiff’s subscribers are 

professional ad agencies that develop weekly ads/grocery store websites for their own ‘end users’ 

(i.e., grocery stores, meat/dairy sellers, etc.). Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff owns each of the photographs 

available for license on its website and serves as the licensing agent with respect to licensing such 

photographs for limited use by Plaintiff’s customers. Id. at 3. To that end, Plaintiff’s standard 

terms include a limited, non-transferable license for use of any photograph by the customer only. 

Id. Plaintiff’s license terms make clear that all copyright ownership remains with Plaintiff and that 

its customers are not permitted to transfer, assign, or sub-license any of Plaintiff’s photographs to 

another person/entity. Id.

This lawsuit concerns one (1) photograph titled “ChickenWingsHot004_ADL” (“Work”) 

owned by Plaintiff for which Plaintiff serves as the licensing agent. Id. The Work is available for 

license on the above-stated terms. Id.

The Work was registered by Plaintiff (pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement with the 

author that transferred all rights and title in the photograph to Plaintiff) with the Register of 

Copyrights on January 26, 2017 and was assigned Registration No. VA 2-046-824. Id. A copy of 

the Certificate of Registration pertaining to the Work is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. 

Id. at 4.

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17

Defendant is a Caribbean style chicken wing restaurant with two locations in South Florida 

and one in New Jersey. Id. Defendant advertises/markets its business primarily through its 

commercial website, social media, and other forms of advertising. Id. In February 2020 (after 

Plaintiff’s above-referenced copyright registration of the Work), Defendant published the Work 

on its Facebook page. Id. A copy of screenshots of Defendant’s Facebook displaying the 

copyrighted Work, are attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Id. at 5. Defendant was never 

licensed to use or display the Work. Id. Defendant never contacted Plaintiff to seek permission 

to use the Work in connection with its website/advertising or for any other purpose – even though 

the Work that was copied is clearly professional stock photography that would put Defendant on 

notice that the Work was not intended for public use. Id. Defendant used the Work for commercial 

use – namely, in connection with the marketing of its business. Id. Upon information and belief, 

Defendant located a copy of the Work on the internet and, rather than contact Plaintiff to secure a 

license, simply copied the Work for its own commercial use. Id.

Plaintiff’s primary business is the creation of new photo/video content and licensing such 

content to supermarkets, ad agencies, and other entities. Id. To ensure Plaintiff’s valuable 

intellectual property is not being misappropriated (which necessarily lowers the value thereof), 

Plaintiff employs a full-time paralegal and other staff that each (when time permits) perform 

reverse-image searches using Google Images and review grocery store electronic/print ads to 

determine whether Plaintiff’s images are being misused. Id. at 6. Plaintiff’s staff generally 

searches using a rotating sub-set of photographs that may be illegally/improperly published by 

non-licensees. Id. Given the volume of Plaintiff’s library, Plaintiff was reasonably unable to 

discover Defendant’s improper use of the Work at issue in this lawsuit prior to the aforementioned 

date of discovery. Id.

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17

Through its ongoing diligent efforts to identify unauthorized use of its photographs, 

Plaintiff first discovered Defendant’s unauthorized use/display of the Work in October 2021. Id. 

Following Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant’s infringement, Plaintiff sent at least one 

infringement notice to Defendant to notify it of the impermissible use. Id. Defendant ignored the 

notice(s) and did not otherwise respond to Plaintiff. Id. Ultimately, Plaintiff retained the 

undersigned counsel to pursue this matter. Id. Plaintiff (through counsel) sent via e-mail and 

Federal Express an infringement notice to Defendant to notify it of the impermissible use. Id. 

Undersigned counsel sent at least five subsequent e-mails to Defendant and attempted phone calls 

in an attempt to negotiate a reasonable license for the use of the Work, yet these communications 

went substantially unanswered.1

 

ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Standards 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth two steps to obtain a default judgment. First, 

when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend a lawsuit, the clerk of court enters a clerk’s 

default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, after entry of the clerk’s default, the Court may enter 

default judgment against the defendant so long as the defendant is not an infant or incompetent. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “The effect of a default judgment is that the defendant admits the 

plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by entry by the judgment 

and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 

F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987). 

The Court must review the sufficiency of the complaint before determining if a moving 

party is entitled to default judgment. See U.S. v. Kahn, 164 F. App’x 855, 858 (11th Cir. 2006) 

1 On one of the phone calls with Ms. Phillips, she attempted to blame a third-party, and ended the 

conversation at that. As such, Plaintiff was unable to negotiate a reasonable license. Id. 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17

(citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206) (5th Cir. 1975); Tyco 

Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007)). “While a complaint . . . 

does not need detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff’s obligation to show its entitlement to relief 

“requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If the admitted facts 

are enough to establish liability, the Court must then ascertain the appropriate amount of damages 

and enter final judgment in that amount. See Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206. An evidentiary hearing 

on damages is not required by Rule 55, and it is within the Court’s discretion to choose whether to 

hold such a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13 (11th 

Cir. 2005); Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App’x 908, 911–12 (11th Cir. 

2011).

B. Copyright Infringement

The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a), provides that “(a)nyone who violates any of the 

exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 [17 U.S.C. §§ 

106-122] or of the author as provided in section 106A(a) [17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)]... is an infringer 

of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.” 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). “Copyright 

infringement has two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of 

protectable elements.” Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc., 825 F.3d 1314, 

1320 (11th Cir. 2016).

With respect to the first element, a certificate of registration “constitute[s] prima facie 

evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” 17 U.S.C. § 

410(c). “Once a plaintiff produces a valid registration, the burden shifts to the defendant to 

establish that the work in which the copyright claimed is unprotectable.” Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17

Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1233 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, Plaintiff registered the Work pursuant to 

17 U.S.C. § 411(a) with the Register of Copyrights on August 29, 2011 and was assigned 

Registration No. VAu 1-077-015. By virtue of its default, Defendants do not have any right to 

challenge Plaintiff’s registration/ownership of a valid copyright. 

The copying element of an infringement claim has two components. Latimer, 601 F.3d at 

1232. First, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants copied the plaintiff's work as a factual 

matter. Id. Second, the plaintiff must establish “substantial similarity” between the allegedly 

infringing work and the elements of the copyrighted work that are legally protected. Id. at 1233.

Here, the screenshots of Defendant’s Facebook unequivocally show Defendant’s copying 

of the Work. Defendant’s default further constitutes an admission as to such copying. There is no 

factual or subjective issue of “substantial similarity” here as Defendant copied and published a 

duplicate image of the Work. Thus, Defendant undisputedly copied Plaintiff’s copyrighted Work 

resulting in this Final Default Judgment being entered against Defendant on Count I of the 

Complaint. 

C. Willfulness

Willful infringement occurs when the Defendant acts “with ‘actual knowledge 

or reckless disregard for whether its conduct infringed upon the plaintiff's copyright.’” Arista 

Recs., Inc. v. Beker Enters., Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Original 

Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. J.F. Reichert, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D. Pa.

1987)). “Moreover, this Court may infer that Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights 

because of Defendants’ default.” Id. at 1313 (citations omitted). When awarding increased 

damages in the context of Section 504(c)(2), “deterrence of future violations is a legitimate 

consideration” because “defendants must not be able to sneer in the face of copyright owners and 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17

copyright laws.” Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prods., 902 F.2d 829, 851 (11th Cir. 

1990) (internal quotation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff took the extra step of notifying Defendant of its infringement pre-lawsuit. 

Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s attempts to communicate directly and subsequently ignored 

undersigned counsel’s e-mails and phone calls. Defendant’s refusal to pay a reasonable licensing 

fee and refusal to respond to multiple infringement notices demonstrates that Defendant had actual

knowledge or acted with reckless disregard for the fact that its conduct infringed upon Plaintiff’s

exclusive copyrights in the Work. Further, despite all communication attempts, the Work still 

remains posted on Defendant’s Facebook page. Mot. at 9. Defendant’s refusal to remove Plaintiff’s 

Work after nearly a dozen communication attempts demonstrates Defendant’s willfulness.

Accordingly, Defendant’s default and the well-pled facts of the Complaint, which are

admitted by Defendant’s default, establish that Defendant’s infringement of the Work was willful 

and deliberate.

D. Plaintiff’s Damages

1. Actual Damages

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), a “copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages 

suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement.” Actual damages are often “measured by 

the revenue that the plaintiff lost as a result of the infringement.” Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 

1282, 1295 n.19 (11th Cir. 1999). This loss includes “lost sales, lost opportunities to license, or 

diminution in the value of the copyright.” Thornton v. J Jargon Co., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1276 

(M.D. Fla. 2008) (quoting On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 164 (2d Cir. 2001)). The 

copyright owner may also recover the fair market value of the licensing fee that would have been 

charged for the work that was infringed. Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prod., Inc., No. 09-61529, 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17

2010 WL 11492992, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 09-

61529, 2010 WL 11493070 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2010). To demonstrate entitlement to a reasonable 

license fee, the fair market value of an infringed work may be established by “evidence of 

benchmark licenses, that is, what licensors have paid for use of similar work.” Thornton, 580 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1261 (citing Montgomery, 168 F.3d at 1295 n.19 (11th Cir. 1999)). 

As set forth above and in the declaration of Rebecca Jones (Plaintiff’s Secretary), Plaintiff 

exclusively operates on a subscription basis whereby it provides access to its library at $999.00 

per month with a minimum twelve (12) month contract commitment (i.e., a licensee must pay at 

least $11,988.00 for access to any of Plaintiff’s photographs for anywhere from 1 day to 1 year). 

Mot. at 10. Plaintiff generally does not license individual photographs as doing so greatly 

diminishes the value of Plaintiff’s subscription model. Id. Plaintiff offers semi-exclusivity to its 

licensees – Plaintiff knows exactly what ad agencies, grocery stores, etc. have access to its library 

and can assure its customers that a competitor down the street will not be using the same 

photograph(s) in its own weekly ads, circulars, internet marketing, etc. Id. Plaintiff’s customers 

often spend tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars publishing weekly ads and developing 

marketing campaigns to advertise their products/services. Id.

Because Plaintiff markets its photographic library on the basis of its exclusivity, the 

copying and publishing of individual photographs by non-licensees greatly reduces the value of 

Plaintiff’s library. Id. Plaintiff employs multiple full-time employees to locate and identify such 

nonauthorized uses in an effort to ensure exclusivity to Plaintiff’s licensees. Id. Plaintiff incurs 

these expenses (payroll etc.) to protect the integrity of its library. Id.

Plaintiff’s library of photographs was created over a 15–20 year period of time (with new 

creative works being made through the present date). Id. Plaintiff has employed professional staff 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17

photographers and likewise utilizes other professional photographers (on a work-for-hire basis), 

all of which specialize in high-end product/food photography. Id. All of these photographers are 

provided specific instructions with respect to Plaintiff’s vision/overall composition requirements 

– namely, that food/product photography should result in images/meals accessible to the general 

public that an average family could prepare for a meal. Id. For any image (including the one at 

issue in this lawsuit), Plaintiff’s photographers spend hours using specialized lighting/equipment

and take dozens (if not hundreds) of images before identifying 1–2 for inclusion in Plaintiff’s 

library. Id at 10–11. For any given photograph, Plaintiff then has costs associated with postprocessing the image in specialized editing software such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom, 

and/or other programs so that the desired end-look of the photograph can be achieved, for their 

proper use in print and digital media advertising. Id. at 11. 

When Plaintiff’s staff discovers an existing (i.e., published and available for viewing on 

the internet) infringement of one of its photographs, Plaintiff creates an infringement notice on the 

date of discovery or within 1–2 days thereafter. Id. The infringement notice identifies the date of 

discovery, displays the subject photograph, and displays a screenshot of the infringer’s alleged use 

together with a Facebook URL (if available) where the infringement is located. Id. A true and 

correct copy of Plaintiff’s infringement notices with respect to the Work at issue in this lawsuit are 

attached to the Motion in the Jones Declaration. Id.

The earlier-posted Facebook page is dated February 6, 2020, which shows that the Work 

was published by Defendant at least as of February 2020. Id. Defendant’s failure to participate in 

this lawsuit has limited Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery to fully discover the extent of its 

infringement and/or the exact date on which the Work was uploaded and/or removed from 

Defendant’s Facebook. Id. This significantly hinders Plaintiff’s ability to determine its damages 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17

because, for each year that Defendant published the Work, Plaintiff would be owed an annual 

license fee of $11,988.00. Id. Here, it is only known that the Work was published as of February 

2020 (the date of the Facebook post). As Plaintiff does not pro-rate its license, Defendant would 

be in its third year of usage (e.g., Feb. 2020-Feb. 2021; Feb. 2021-Feb. 2022; Feb. 2022-Present). 

Id. Given these facts, Plaintiff proffers that the cost for the contractual minimum 1-year license 

($11,988.00), multiplied by the three years of use, is the most accurate measure of Plaintiff’s actual 

damages based on presently-known facts. Id. at 11–12.

In Prepared Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. v. 

Patriot Fine Foods LLC, the $11,988.00 license was found to be a useful tool to properly calculate 

Plaintiff’s damages:

Here, Plaintiff provides access to its library at a price $999.00 per 

month with a minimum twelve-month contract commitment, 

meaning, a licensee must pay $11,988 for access to any of Plaintiff’s 

photographs for any amount of time within a one-year period. (ECF 

No. 13, Ex. A. ¶¶ 4–5). Plaintiff has numerous clients who pay this 

annual subscription fee. (Id. ¶ 4). While that demonstrates that 

licensors have indeed licensed its library on an annual basis for 

$11,988, it is unclear whether any licensor has paid that amount to 

utilize a single photograph in the library. Nevertheless, I find 

$11,988 to be a useful proxy given the below-described difficulties 

in calculating with precision Plaintiff’s actual damages.

Prepared Foods Photos, Inc. v. Patriot Fine Foods LLC, No. 21-82129, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

205649, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2022). The same analysis was adopted by the court in Prepared

Food Photos, Inc. v. 193 Corp., No. 1:22-cv-03832, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205690 (N.D. Ill. Sep.

21, 2022) in which the court entered a default judgment for three (3) years of pre-registration use 

of a single photograph in the amount of $35,964.00 ($11,988.00 x 3). See also Prepared Food

Photos, Inc. v. Miami Beach 411 Corp., No. 22-23197, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216003 (S.D. Fla.

Nov. 28, 2022) (awarding Plaintiff $35,964.00 in actual damages, representing the $11,988.00 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17

annual license fee x 3 years of usage of a single photo); Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Fat Daddy

Co., No. 22-61671, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216004 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2022) (awarding Plaintiff 

$23,976.00 in statutory damages, representing the $11,988.00 annual license fee for a 1-year use 

with a 2x multiplier applied thereto).

Defendant’s inaction and refusal to participate in this lawsuit suppressed the information 

necessary to fully calculate Plaintiff’s actual damages. Id. at 12–13. Similarly, Defendant’s refusal 

to cooperate in this lawsuit has prevented Plaintiff from discovering any profits received by 

Defendant that would be recoverable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) in addition to Plaintiff’s actual 

losses. To establish Defendant’s profits subject to disgorgement under § 504(b), a “copyright owner 

is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to 

provide his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than 

the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Defendant solely controls all information concerning 

its gross revenue related to its infringing uses of the Work, and it has stymied Plaintiff’s ability to 

present that evidence to the Court.

Given the above, Plaintiff believes that the fairest beginning measure of its actual damages, 

in this case, is the $11,988.00 annual cost for licensing any image from Plaintiff’s library multiplied 

by the maximum years of use that copyright will permit, $35,964.00 ($11,988.00 x 3). However, 

in view of the foregoing, actual damages are insufficient due to Defendant’s refusal to appear and 

participate in discovery, and Plaintiff thus elects to seek an award of statutory damages for 

Defendant’s willful infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted Work.

2. Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), Plaintiff hereby elects to recover statutory damages for 

Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted Work, and 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17

enhancement of its statutory award based upon the willfulness of such infringement. Where (as 

here) willful infringement has occurred, courts in this Circuit will generally look to a plaintiff’s 

actual damages and award 2x–3x to properly account for statutory damages. See, e.g., Corson v.

Gregory Charles Interiors, LLC, No. 9:19-cv-81445, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142932, at *5-7 (S.D. 

Fla. Aug. 7, 2020) (trebling the plaintiff’s actual damages after applying a scarcity multiplier); 

Buttnugget Publ’g v. Radio Lake Placid, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 100, 110-11 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[T]o 

put infringers on notice that it costs less to obey the copyright laws than to violate them, a statutory 

damage award should significantly exceed the amount of unpaid license fees.”).

In cases of non-willful infringement, statutory damages may be awarded up to $30,000.00 

resulting from the infringement of the copyrighted Work. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). As discussed 

above, however, Defendant’s conduct – as well as its decision not to defend against Plaintiff’s 

claim – demonstrates that its conduct is willful: 

Had Plaintiff been able to conduct discovery and gather information 

on the scope of Defendant’s infringement, actual damages would 

have likely been greater than the reasonable licensing fee for the 

Work. Here, doubling $11,988 will appropriately account for the 

circumstances surrounding this infringement and the need for 

deterrence. Defendant’s declination to participate in this litigation 

impeded the court’s ability to calculate the total extent of Plaintiff’s 

actual damages, including Defendant’s profits. Defendant likely 

profited to some degree from its unauthorized use; Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant made commercial use of the Work for at least one 

year, advertising the sale of “USA Prime Angus London Broil” on 

its website for $9.99 per pound. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 15, 17). Further, as 

described above, Defendant’s conduct was willful. And “deterrence 

of future violations is a legitimate consideration” because 

“defendants must not be able to sneer in the face of copyright owners 

and copyright laws.” Cable/Home Commc’n Corp., 902 F.3d at 851 

(internal quotation omitted). The need to deter future violations is 

an especially appropriate consideration here, given Defendant’s 

default.

Patriot Fine Foods LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205649, at *12–13. The same facts in Patriot 

Fine Foods apply to this case. Plaintiff was unable to conduct discovery or gather information. 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17

Plaintiff’s licensing structure is a strong proxy for calculating damages. Similar to the approach 

taken in in Patriot Fine Foods, and given the circumstances of the instant case, Plaintiff submits 

that an award of statutory damages in the amount of $71,928.00 ($35,964.00 x 2) under 17 U.S.C. 

§ 504(c)(2) is appropriate to compensate Plaintiff for the damages suffered, to disincentivize 

infringers from intentionally hiding the profits of their infringing conduct in the hope they earn 

more than they can be held accountable for in actual damages, and to deter future violations of 

copyright law. 

E. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, “the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs 

by or against any party... the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to pay the prevailing 

party as part of the costs.” Upon entry of a final judgment, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this 

action. In view of the willful nature of Defendant’s infringement and its failure to defend or 

otherwise participate in this action, leading to unjustified delays and increased costs and fees, an 

award of full costs and attorney’s fees to Plaintiff is appropriate. 

17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(5) likewise provides “the court...in its discretion may award 

reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party...,” providing a second statute for an award of 

Plaintiff’s full costs and attorney’s fees.

The Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is appropriate here. Defendant’s 

willful conduct, failure to engage Plaintiff in an attempt to pay a reasonable licensing fee, and 

failure to participate in this lawsuit resulted in unnecessary fees and costs being incurred. The 

Court has reviewed the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel filed together with the Motion and finds 

such declaration to support the amount of fees and costs being sought. 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17

The Court finds that the costs sought by the Motion ($461.40) are taxable against 

Defendant. Mot. at 16. These costs consist of the filing fee for this lawsuit and the service of 

process costs. Id. 

Having concluded Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the Court must now determine the 

reasonableness of Plaintiff’s requested fee amount. “The most useful starting point for 

determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

“This number is called the lodestar.” Ela v. Destefano, 869 F.3d 1198, 1203 (11th Cir. 

2017). “[T]here is a strong presumption that the lodestar is the reasonable sum the attorneys 

deserve.” Id. But “[u]ltimately, the computation of a fee award is necessarily an exercise of 

judgment, because there is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations.” Villano 

v. Cty of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2001).

The Court has performed the lodestar analysis and finds that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably 

expended 7.90 hours (with 0.35 of those hours being expended by paralegals in Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s office and 5.10 hours being expended by a junior associate) in connection with pursuing 

this matter. The Court further finds that $450.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel 

(Daniel DeSouza), that $300.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for the junior associate attorney, and 

that $125.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for the paralegals. 

Mr. DeSouza is a 2004 graduate of the George Washington University Law School who is 

admitted to both the Florida Bar and the New York Bar. He previously worked at Milbank, Tweed, 

Hadley & McCloy LLP and Becker & Poliakoff, PA before forming DeSouza Law, PA in 2014 

and jointly forming CopyCat Legal PLLC in 2019. He is admitted to a multitude of federal courts 

throughout the country and has extensive experience litigating cases in both federal and state court. 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17

In addition to Mr. DeSouza, a junior associate (Lauren Hausman) also billed time on this 

matter. She is a 2021 graduate of Elon University School of Law. She graduated third in her class 

with magna cum laude distinction, served on law review, and is in the Order of Barristers. She is 

admitted to the Florida Bar and both the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Court thus finds 

that $300.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Hausman.

Given the above, the Court has calculated the lodestar amount to be $2,675.25.

F. Permanent Injunction

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a), “[a]ny court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising 

under this title may, subject to the provisions of section 1498 of title 28, grant temporary and final 

injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a 

copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502. Injunctions are regularly issued pursuant to Section 502 because 

“the public interest is the interest in upholding copyright protections”; and courts also regularly 

issue injunctions as part of default judgments. Arista Records, 298 F. Supp. 2d at 1314 (entering 

permanent injunction against defendants with respect to plaintiff’s copyrighted work, including 

plaintiff’s work to be created in the future).

Here, Defendant’s conduct has caused, and any continued infringing conduct will continue 

to cause, irreparable injury to Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. For 

example, the ability of Defendant to use Plaintiff’s Work for its own commercial benefit without 

compensation to Plaintiff greatly impairs the market value of the Work, since others competing in 

that business or in related business areas, will not want to obtain a license to Plaintiff’s work if it 

is already associated with a competing business; and potential licensees of Plaintiff will not want 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17

to pay license fees to Plaintiff if they see other commercial enterprises taking and using Plaintiff’s 

photographs for their own commercial purposes without paying any fee at all. 

Accordingly, the Court will enter a permanent injunction against Defendant, its employees, 

agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and assigns, and all those 

in active concert and participation with Defendant, prohibiting it from (a) directly or indirectly 

infringing Plaintiff’s copyright or continuing to market, offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, 

transfer, publicly display, advertise, reproduce, develop, or manufacture any work derived or 

copied from Plaintiff’s copyrighted photograph or to participate or assist in any such activity; and 

(b) directly or indirectly reproducing, displaying, distributing, otherwise using, or retaining any 

copy, whether in physical or electronic form, of any copyrighted photograph owned by Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff, Prepared Food 

Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. and against Defendant Perry 

Wings Plus, Inc. as follows: 

1. Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant the principal sum of $75,065.65 for which 

let execution issue. The foregoing sum consists of $71,928.00 (statutory damages for copyright 

infringement), $461.40 (costs), and $2,676.25 (attorneys’ fees). 

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.560, the judgment debtor, 

Perry Wings Plus, Inc., shall complete, under oath, a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977 

(Fact Information Sheet), including all required attachments, and serve it on the judgment 

creditor’s attorney, Daniel DeSouza Esq., CopyCat Legal PLLC, 3111 N. University Drive, Suite 

301, Coral Springs, FL 33065, within 45 days from the date of this Final Judgment, unless the 

Final Judgment is satisfied or post-judgment discovery is stayed. Failure to complete the fact 

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17

information sheet shall be just cause for further sanctions. See, e.g., Biggross, Inc. v. Matthews, 

No. 8:02-CV-1216, 2007 WL 2827566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007) (awarding sanctions for 

a defendant’s failure to fill out a fact information sheet).

3. Defendant, its employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, 

affiliates, subsidiaries and assigns, and all those in active concert and participation with Defendant 

are permanently enjoined from (a) directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s copyright or 

continuing to market, offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, transfer, publicly display, advertise, 

reproduce, develop, or manufacture any work derived or copied from Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

photograph or to participate or assist in any such activity; and (b) directly or indirectly reproducing, 

displaying, distributing, otherwise using, or retaining any copy, whether in physical or electronic 

form, of any copyrighted photograph owned by Plaintiff.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 19th day of December, 2022.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-61883-RAR Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 17 of 17