61 F. Supp. 3d 301
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Getty files suit against Microsoft over the Bing Image Widget launched Aug 22, 2014, accusing infringement of Getty’s copyrighted images.
- Widget displays Bing Image Search results on third‑party websites with Getty’s images reproduced, distributed, and publicly displayed.
- Getty identifies sixty‑two works in an exhibit and claims infringement via the Widget; Microsoft moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
- Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) standard, allowing plausible claims drawn from the Amended Complaint and attached exhibits.
- Exclusive licensees are treated as copyright owners for protection and remedies; Getty need not detail every license scope.
- Statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504/412 may be unavailable for works registered after infringement if registration is after three months from first publication; dispute centers on whether infringement began with Widget use and registration timing.
- Conclusion: motion to dismiss denied; use of an image through the Widget constitutes infringement when used, affecting § 412 timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership and license sufficiency to support infringement | Getty as owner/exclusive licensee suffices | Getty must show broader rights/scope | Sufficient; exclusive licensees protected; scope need not be detailed at this stage |
| Infringement scope beyond identified works | Infringement extends beyond the sixty‑two works | Cannot plead beyond identified works | Not limited to sixty‑two works; claims broadened by Widget’s dynamic use |
| Statutory damages and registration timing | Damages may be available if timing complies | Infringement began with Widget use; some registrations after initial publication violate § 412 | Statutory damages may be unavailable for late‑registered works; analysis reserved for damages stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (clarifies pleading standards and rights under § 106; plausibility standard applies to infringement claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claims, not mere legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible facts, not mere conclusory assertions)
- Morris v. Business Concepts, Inc., 259 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (exclusive licensees treated as owners for purposes of protection and remedy)
- Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002) (exclusive licensees treated as owners for protection and remedy)
- Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) (defines what constitutes incorporated documents in a complaint and reliance on attached materials)