UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61671-CIV-SINGHAL

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

ADLIFE MARKETING &

COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

FAT DADDY CO. d/b/a FAT DADDY MEATS,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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

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

Judgment (the “Motion”) (DE [13]). The Court has considered the Motion, has noted the 

Clerk’s default against defendant Fat Daddy Co. d/b/a Fat Daddy Meats (“Defendant”),

and is otherwise advised in the premises. Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that it is 

entitled to a final default judgment as to Defendant. Plaintiff has also met its burden of 

showing that he is entitled to permanent injunctive relief against Defendant as specified 

herein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final 

Default Judgment (DE [13]) is GRANTED as follows:

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 1 of 18
2 

I. Findings of Fact1

1. Plaintiff is in the business of licensing high-end, professional photographs 

for the food industry.

2. 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 (https://preparedfoodphotos.com/featuredsubscriptions/) for access to its library of professional photographs. 

3. Plaintiff’s standard licensing terms require a minimum of a twelve (12) 

month licensing commitment (https://preparedfoodphotos.com/terms.of.use.php) to 

avoid scenarios whereby a licensee pays for one (1) month of access, downloads the 

entire library of 20,000+ photographs, and immediately terminates the license 

agreement.

4. Plaintiff’s business model relies on its recurring monthly subscription service 

and the income derived therefrom such that Plaintiff can continue to maintain its 

impressive portfolio.

5. 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). 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.). 

6. Plaintiff owns each of the photographs available for license on its website 

1 A district court must exercise “independent judgment” in adopting a party’s proposed findings. See Macort

v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). In this case, the Court has independently analyzed 

the evidence presented and has adopted only those findings which the Court has independently deemed 

appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 2 of 18
3 

and serves as the licensing agent with respect to licensing such photographs for limited 

use by Plaintiff’s customers. To that end, Plaintiff’s standard terms include a limited, nontransferable license for use of any photograph by the customer only. 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. 

7. This lawsuit concerns one (1) photograph titled “ChickenTender004” (the 

“Work”) owned by Plaintiff for which Plaintiff serves as the licensing agent. The Work is 

available for license on the above-stated terms. 

8. 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 September 20, 2016 and was assigned Registration No. VA 

2-017-741. A copy of the Certificate of Registration pertaining to the Work is attached 

to the Complaint as Exhibit A thereto. 

9. Defendant is a wholesale meats seller. It has an option for local purchasing

in addition to shipping meats throughout the contiguous United States. 

10. Defendant advertises/markets its business primarily through its website

(https://fatdaddymeats.com/), social media

(e.g.,https://www.facebook.com/FatDaddyMeats and

https://www.instagram.com/fatdaddymeats/?fbclid=IwAR2OvsLbxEYetkWYenUxKqww

W0kULa6-BsViwynDh6o66Y3uM1tavudlUa4), and other forms of advertising.

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 3 of 18
4 

11. On a date after Plaintiff’s above-referenced copyright registration of the 

Work, Defendant published the Work on its website (at 

https://fatdaddymeats.com/collections/chicken and

https://fatdaddymeats.com/collections/all?page=5): 

12. A true and correct copy of screenshots of Defendant’s website, displaying 

the copyrighted Work, are attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B thereto.

13. The foregoing display of the Work on Defendant’s website was accessible 

and was in fact accessed from persons in the State of Florida.

14. Defendant is not and has never been licensed to use or display the Work. 

Defendant never contacted Plaintiff to seek permission to use the Work in connection 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 4 of 18
5 

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. 

15. Defendant utilized the Work for commercial use – namely, in connection 

with the marketing of its business. 

16. 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. 

17. Plaintiff’s primary business is the creation of new photo/video content and 

licensing such content to supermarkets, ad agencies, etc. To ensure that 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 

(https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en) and review grocery store electronic/print ads to 

determine whether Plaintiff’s images are being misused. 

18. Plaintiff’s staff generally searches using a rotating sub-set of photographs 

that may be illegally/improperly published by non-licensees. 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. 

19. Through its ongoing diligent efforts to identify unauthorized use of its 

photographs, Plaintiff first discovered Defendant’s unauthorized use/display of the Work 

on September 12, 2019. 

20. Following Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant’s infringement, Plaintiff sent at 

least two (2) infringement notices to Defendant to notify it of the impermissible use. 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 5 of 18
6 

Defendant ignored the notice(s) and did not otherwise respond to Plaintiff. 

21. Ultimately, Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel to pursue this matter. 

Plaintiff (through counsel) sent via e-mail one (1) infringement notice to Defendant to 

notify it of the impermissible use. Plaintiff’s counsel sent at least one (1) subsequent email to Defendant, and – following the entry of the Clerk Default – sent an additional 

email and attempted two (2) phone calls in an attempt to negotiate a reasonable license 

for the use of the Work, yet these communications went substantially unanswered.2 

II. Conclusions of Law

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 may enter 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 Fed. Appx. 855, 858 

2

 On Defendant’s Facebook, Mr. John Samsa is listed as the point of contact. He received Plaintiff’s

counsel’s email and responded “"That might be similar to your photo but it's not.your photo. Good luck” 

[sic]. Following the entry of the Clerk Default, Plaintiff’s counsel yet again reached out to Mr. Samsa whose 

only response was “You should try calling the business”. Following both dismissive emails from Mr. Samsa, 

and the Clerk Default, counsel attempted to call the business twice. All communication attempts have gone 

substantively unanswered. 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 6 of 18
7

(11th Cir. 2006) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 

1206) (5th Cir. 1975); Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 Fed. Appx. 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 Productions, Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 

Fed. Appx. 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.”

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 7 of 18
8 

Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, 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 v. 

Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010). 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 website 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 and a Final Default Judgment should be 

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 Records, Inc. v. Beker Enterprises, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1313 (S.D. 

Fla. 2003) (J. Cohn) (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 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 8 of 18
9

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 copyright laws.” Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions,

902 F.2d 829, 851 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff took the extra step of notifying Defendant of its infringement prelawsuit. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s attempts to communicate directly and subsequently 

ignored 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 at least acted with reckless disregard, of the fact

that its conduct infringed upon Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights in the Work.

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, which 

includes lost sales, lost opportunities to license, or diminution in the value of the 

copyright.” Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148752, at *12 

(S.D. Fla. Sep. 7, 2010).

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. Id. at 15. To demonstrate 

entitlement to a reasonable license fee, the fair market value of an infringed work may be 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 9 of 18
10

established by “evidence of benchmark licenses, that is, what licensors have paid for use 

of similar work.” Thornton v. J. Jargon Co., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (citing 

Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 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). Plaintiff generally does not license individual 

photographs as doing so greatly diminishes the value of Plaintiff’s subscription model. 

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. 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.

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. Plaintiff employs multiple full-time employees to locate and 

identify such nonauthorized uses in an effort to ensure exclusivity to Plaintiff’s licensees. 

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

Plaintiff’s library of photographs was created over a 15 to 20-year period of time 

(with new creative works being made through the present date). Plaintiff has employed 

professional staff photographers and likewise utilizes other professional photographers 

(on a work-for-hire basis), all of whom specialize in high-end product/food photography. 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 10 of 18
11

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. 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 or 2 for inclusion in Plaintiff’s library. For any 

given photograph, Plaintiff then has costs associated with post-processing 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. 

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 2 days thereafter. 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 website URL (if available) where 

the infringement is located. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s infringement notices with 

respect to the Work at issue in this lawsuit are attached to the Jones Decl.

The aforementioned infringement notices show that the Work was published by 

Defendant at least as of September 2019. 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 website. Sources such as the Wayback Machine and inspecting the 

URL/page source of the website were unhelpful in determining precisely when the Work 

was published by Defendant. This tremendously hinders Plaintiff’s ability to determine its 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 11 of 18
12

damages because, for each year that Defendant published the Work, Plaintiff would be 

owed an annual license fee of $11,988.00. Here, it is only known that the Work was 

published as of September 2019 (when Plaintiff initially discovered the infringement), but 

not when the Work was removed. Given these facts, the Court finds that the cost for the 

contractual minimum 1-year license ($11,988.00) is the most accurate measure of 

Plaintiff’s actual damages based on presently-known facts. 

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. (DE 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 Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. v. Patriot 

Fine Foods LLC, Case No. 21-82129-CIV-Middlebrooks/Matthewman (S.D. Fla.). The 

same analysis was adopted by the court in Prepared Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife 

Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. v. 193 Corp. d/b/a Bella Lukes, Case No. 1:22-cv03832 (N.D. Ill.) in which the court entered a default judgment for three (3) years of preregistration use of a single photograph in the amount of $35,964.00 ($11,988.00 x 3).

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

information necessary to fully calculate Plaintiff’s actual damages. Similarly, Defendant’s 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 12 of 18
13

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 [its] 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, the Court finds 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. 

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 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 two to three times that amount

to properly account for statutory damages. See, e.g. Corson v. Gregory Charles Interiors,

LLC, 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 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 13 of 18
14

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). However, as discussed above, 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. (DE 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.

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

Fine Foods LLC, Case No. 21-82129-CIV-Middlebrooks/Matthewman. The same facts as 

in Patriot Fine Foods apply to this present case. Plaintiff was unable to conduct discovery 

or gather information. Plaintiff’s licensing structure is a strong proxy for calculating 

damages. Likewise to Judge Middlebrooks’ finding in Patriot Fine Foods, and given the 

circumstances of the instant case, Plaintiff submits that an award of statutory damages in 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 14 of 18
15

the amount of $23,976.00 ($11, 988.00 x 2) under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) is appropriate to 

compensate Plaintiff for the damages suffered, to create a strong disincentive against 

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

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 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-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 15 of 18
16

The Court finds that the costs sought by the Motion ($467.00) are taxable against 

Defendant. These costs consist of the filing fee for this lawsuit and the service of process 

costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

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. City 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 8.25 hours (with 1.00 of those hours being expended by paralegals 

in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office and 3.95 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 (Lauren Hausman), and that $125.00 is a reasonable 

hourly rate for the paralegals. in this action given the complexity of the matter, the results 

obtained, and the experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel which the Court found to be substantial. 

Given the above, the Court has calculated the lodestar amount to be $2,795. The 

fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff, therefore, totals $3,262.00.

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 16 of 18
17

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 judgements. 

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 to pay license fees to Plaintiff if 

they see other commercial enterprises taking and using Plaintiff’s photographs for its 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, 

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 17 of 18
18

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.

III. Conclusion

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) a separate final judgment in favor of Plaintiff, 

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

against defendant Fat Daddy Co. d/b/a Fat Daddy Meats will be entered.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 29th day of 

November 2022. 

Copy furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/29/2022 Page 18 of 18