Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Trip Restaurant LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No. 1:22-cv-07953-ER PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC. f/k/a ADLIFE MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. TRIP RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a WELLINGTON’S GRILL, Defendant. [PROPOSED] DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 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”) against defendant Trip Restaurant LLC d/b/a Wellington’s Grill (“Defendant”) [D.E. _22_]. The Court has considered the Motion, has noted the Clerk’s default against defendant Trip Restaurant LLC d/b/a Wellington’s Grill (“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 it is entitled to permanent injunctive relief against Defendant as specified herein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: I. Findings of Fact 1. Plaintiff is in the business of licensing high-end, professional photographs for the

food industry. 2. Plaintiff 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/featured-subscriptions/) 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 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, non-transferable 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 “BeefPrimeRibSlice004_ADL” (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 January 13, 2017 and was assigned Registration No. VA 2-047-019. A copy of the Certificate of Registration pertaining to the Work is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A thereto. 9. Defendant is a family restaurant and grill that serves seafood, steaks, and burgers. 10. On a date after Plaintiff's above-referenced copyright registration of the Work, Defendant published the Work on its website (at https://www.wellingtonsgrill.com/menu):

ELTA

□ = —

Main Course Wi Slow-Roasted Prime Rib of Beef Fish &

A true and correct copy of screenshots of Defendant’s website, displaying the copyrighted Work, are attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B thereto. 11. 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 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. 12. Defendant utilized the Work for commercial use – namely, in connection with the marketing of its business. 13. 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. 14. 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.

15. Through its ongoing diligent efforts to identify unauthorized use of its photographs, Plaintiff first discovered Defendant’s unauthorized use/display of the Work in approximately April 8, 2022. 16. Following Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant’s infringement, Plaintiff retained counsel to pursue this matter. Plaintiff (through counsel) sent via e-mail and Federal Express one (1) infringement notice to Defendant to notify it of the impermissible use. Plaintiff (through counsel) sent several follow-up e-mails and made several phone calls to Defendant in an attempt to resolve this matter pre-suit. Despite speaking with Defendant’s representatives and the large number of other pre-suit communications, Plaintiff was unable to negotiate any payment from Defendant for its infringement of the Work and the Work – through at least the filing of the Motion – still remained published on Defendant’s website.

II. Conclusions of Law A. Applicable Legal Standards “Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a two-step process for obtaining a default judgment.” Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 504 (2d Cir. 2011). First, under Federal Rule 55(a), the plaintiff must obtain a clerk’s entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the

party's default.”). Second, under Rule 55(b), the plaintiff may apply for entry of default judgment by the clerk “[i]f the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain,” or by the court “[i]n all other cases.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), (2). By failing to answer the Complaint, a defendant is deemed to have admitted the factual allegations in the Complaint. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[A] party's default is deemed to constitute a concession of all well pleaded allegations of liability.”); Rolex Watch, U.S.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32249, at *5-6, (“In considering a motion for default judgment, the court will treat the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true, and the court will then analyze those facts for their sufficiency to state a claim.”). But before entering default judgment, the Court must review

the allegations to determine whether a plaintiff has stated a valid claim for relief. See Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009). 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). “For a plaintiff to prevail in a copyright infringement case, ‘two elements must be proved: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.’” Sheldon Abend

Revocable Tr. v. Spielberg, 748 F. Supp. 2d 200, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991). 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). “Proffering a copyright registration ‘shifts… the burden of proving the invalidity of the copyright’ to the defendant.” Sohm v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, No. 16cv4255, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126836, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2016) (quoting Fonar Corp. v. Domenick, 105 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff registered the Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) with the Register of Copyrights as set forth above. By virtue of its default,

Defendant does not have any right to challenge Plaintiff’s registration/ownership of a valid copyright. Defendant’s default forecloses any challenge by Defendant as to Plaintiff’s registration/ownership of a valid copyright, and therefore Plaintiff has satisfied the first element. To satisfy the second element of copyright infringement, “the copyright owner must demonstrate that (1) the defendant has actually copied the plaintiff's work; and (2) the copying is illegal because a substantial similarity exists between the defendant's work and the protectible elements of plaintiff's.” Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff may show actual copying through direct or indirect evidence. See Hamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, Inc., 193 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 1999). Copying may be proven indirectly by showing the “defendants had access to the copyrighted work and [that there are] similarities that are probative of copying between the works." Id. To meet the element of substantial similarity, a plaintiff must show that “an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.” Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297, 1302 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (quotation omitted).

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 “To prove willfulness, the plaintiff must either show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Beom Su Lee v. Karaoke

City, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157834, at *25 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2020) (citing Island Software & Comput. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir. 2005)). “Where the plaintiff proves that ‘the defendant recklessly disregarded the possibility that its conduct represented infringement,’ the 'plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant had knowledge that its actions constituted an infringement.’” Sands v. CBS Interactive Inc., No. 18-cv-7345 (JSR), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46260, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019). Moreover, “[a] willful infringement may be inferred from the defendant’s default. Tabak v. LifeDaily, LLC, No. 21 CV 04291 (LLS), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217755, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021) (collecting cases). 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 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 pre-lawsuit. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s attempts to communicate pre-suit (although on at least one occasion

Plaintiff through counsel did speak with Defendant’s representative). Defendant’s refusal to pay a reasonable licensing fee and refusal to substantively communicate 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. Finally, despite multiple notices (Federal Express, e-mail, and telephone) over the course of four (4) months, the Work remains published on Defendant’s website. See https://www.wellingtonsgrill.com/menu and https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b47aea_3f95e9c6ef8a44e5925448797c2e230e~mv2.jpg. The website displaying the Work was captured by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on December 8, 2022

(https://web.archive.org/web/20221208150417/https://www.wellingtonsgrill.com/menu) which clearly shows the Work published thereon as of that date. 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 “primarily measured by the extent to which the market value of the copyrighted work at the time of the infringement has been injured or destroyed by the infringement.” Cordon Holding C.B. v. Nw. Publ'g Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3860, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2005) (quoting See Fitzgerald Publishing Co., Inc. v. Baylor Publishing Co., Inc., 807 F.2d 1110, 1118 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted); see Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., No. 09-61529-CIV-MORE, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 148752, at *12 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 7, 2010) (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.”). 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. McCarthy v. Stollman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164542, at &16 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 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 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 non- authorized 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 – 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 which specialize in high-end product/food photography. 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. 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. 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. As discussed above, Plaintiff first discovered Defendant’s infringement of the Work on April 8, 2022 (at which time the Work was published on Defendant’s website). 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. Here, the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/) was helpful in showing that Defendant published the Work to its website at least as early as April 23, 2021 (see

https://web.archive.org/web/20210423133206/https://www.wellingtonsgrill.com/menu). While the Wayback Machine did capture screenshots of the website dating back to June 2020, none of the prior screenshots show the Work published thereon. Here, it is known that the Work was published as of April 23, 2021 (based on the Wayback Machine) and that it remained published by Defendant until at least December 8, 2022. Given the above, the cost of 2x annual license payments ($23,976.00) 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 Foods Photos, Inc. v. Patriot Fine Foods LLC, No. 21-82129-CV, 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-CIV-ALTONAGA/Damian, 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 annual license fee x 3 years of usage of a single photo); Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Fat Daddy Co., No. 22-61671-CIV-SINGHAL, 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. 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. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the fairest beginning measure of Plaintiff’s 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, Plaintiff elected 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 has elected 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 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). 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. Patriot Fine Foods LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205649, at *12-13. The same facts as in Patriot Fine Foods apply to this present case. Plaintiff was unable to conduct discovery or gather information about the extent of Defendant’s use of the Work/profits derived therefrom. Plaintiff’s licensing structure is a strong proxy for calculating damages. Given the circumstances of the instant case, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $47,952.00 ($23,976.00 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. Plaintiff requests the Court to apply the same multiplier Judge Middlebrooks applied in Patriot Fine Foods, wherein that court doubled the actual damages (the one annual period of use) to account for Plaintiff’s inability to conduct discovery and to deter future violations. The Court shall apply the same multiplier Judge Middlebrooks applied in Patriot Fine Foods, wherein Judge Middlebrooks doubled the actual damages (the one annual period of use) to account for Plaintiff’s inability to conduct discovery and to deter future violations. 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. 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. The Court finds that the costs sought by the Motion ($577.00) are taxable against Defendant. These costs consist of the filing fee for this lawsuit and the service of process costs. Having concluded Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the Court must now determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s requested fee amount. The Court has performed the lodestar analysis and finds that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably expended 8.00 hours in connection with pursuing this matter. The Court further finds that $450.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel (Daniel DeSouza) 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. See Farrington v. Jewish

Voice Inc., No. 21-CV-1575 (NGG) (AYS), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21812, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2022) (“In copyright cases, courts in this district have approved rates between $350 and $500”); Pyatt v. Raymond, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58879, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2012) (collecting cases approving $400 to $650 hourly rates for partners in copyright and trademark cases); Bass v. Diversity Inc. Media, No. 19-cv-2261 (AJN), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93318, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2020) (“A review of cases in this District and in the Eastern District of New York suggests that courts have approved associate rates of $350 and up to $500 for partners in copyright cases.”); Tetra Images, LLC v. Grahall Partners, LLC, No. 19-CV-05250 (PMH), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125809, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2021) (in copyright infringement case, finding $475.00 hourly rate for managing partner in Florida and $450.00 hourly rate for partner in New York office to be reasonable); McLaughlin v. IDT Energy, No. 14 CV 4107 (ENV)(RML), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128347, at *51-53 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2018) (finding award of rates typical to the Eastern District and noted to be: “$550 for partners/equity owners with more than thirty years of experience, $500 for partners/equity owners with more than fifteen years of experience, $450 for partners/equity

owners with more than ten years of experience, $400 for senior associates/associates with more than ten years of experience, $350 for senior associates/associates with six to nine years of experience, $300 for associates with three to five years of experience, $250 for associates with fewer than three years of experience”); Schwartz v. United States DEA, No. 13-CV-5004 (CBA) (ST), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34165, at *26-27 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019) (awarding $500 hourly fee to partner litigating FOIA litigation, and listing awards of between $500 and $655 per hour for partners handling complex litigation); Nat'l Envtl. Saf. Co. v. Katz, No. 18-cv-02161 (JMA) (GRB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76044, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019) (award based upon $500-$600 hourly rate to partners and $300 hourly rate for associates litigating breach of contract

case). 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 (from 2004 – 2010) and Becker & Poliakoff, PA (from 2010 – 2014) 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. Given the above, the Court has calculated the lodestar amount to be $3,005.00. 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, this 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. I. Conclusion Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff, Prepared Food Photos, Inc. f/k/a Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. and against defendant Trip Restaurant LLC d/b/a Wellington’s Grill as follows: 1. Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant the principal sum of $51,534.00 for which let execution issue. The foregoing sum consists of $47,952.00 (statutory damages for copyright infringement), $577.00 (costs), and $3,005.00 (attorneys’ fees). 2. 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. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 22, from the docket. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in New York, New York this 14 day April . of April, 2023. — bt EdgardoRamoss—™ United States District Judge