Getty Images (Us) Inc. v. Advernet, Inc.
797 F. Supp. 2d 399
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Getty Images sued Advernet for copyright infringement of 35 images; defendant defaulted after counsel withdrawal and failure to appear; court held a default judgment was not warranted and dismissed the action with prejudice; plaintiff had to prove exclusive licenses and infringement timelines for each image; court required detailed license ownership evidence but found significant ambiguities and gaps across many images; controversy centered on whether Getty owned exclusive rights to sue and whether infringement occurred within applicable periods; the court conducted a lengthy inquest and evaluated contract documents (Exhibits 3–7) and various license agreements, finding most licenses did not clearly establish exclusive rights to sue or valid ownership for many images; the court ultimately denied default judgment and dismissed the case on liability grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for infringement | Getty had exclusive licenses for many images. | No clear exclusive license; ownership not established. | Insufficient evidence of exclusive licenses to support standing. |
| Ownership of copyright in the 35 images | Getty Images is the owner of the exclusive rights. | Records show authorship not always with Getty; some works wholly owned. | Plaintiff failed to prove valid ownership for many images. |
| Timeliness of infringement claims | Infringement during the three years before suit is enough. | Lack of specific time judgments; potential statute limitations issues. | Time periods for infringement not sufficiently shown; potential bar under limitations. |
| Sufficiency of contract evidence to prove exclusivity | Exhibits 3–4 prove exclusive licenses across images. | Contracts are redacted/ambiguous; relationships between entities unclear. | Exhibits do not establish clear, enforceable exclusive licenses for all images. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155 (2d Cir.1992) (default judgments require careful proof of liability and damages)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.1993) (discretion on Rule 55 judgments; credibility and good faith matter)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51 (2d Cir.1971) (Wooster guidance on well-pleaded allegations vs. uncontroverted evidence)
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.1998) (owner’s standing to sue under exclusive rights; accrual principles)
- Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.2007) (assignment of exclusive rights; enforceability of exclusive licenses)