Jackson v. Odenat
9 F. Supp. 3d 342
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Curtis Jackson ("50 Cent"), G-Unit Records, and Tomorrow Today Entertainment own trademarks and registered copyrights (including photographs filed as pictorial matter with sound recordings Beg for Mercy and Thoughts of a Predicate Felon).
- Defendant Lee Odenat operated worldstarhiphop.com and used three different website mastheads (2005–2009) that included images of Jackson and other G‑Unit members; Plaintiffs allege unauthorized use of likenesses and marks.
- Odenat filed a third‑party complaint against DJ Yves Mondesir ("DJ Whoo Kid"), alleging Mondesir represented he had authority and had placed the WorldStar URL on a Mondesir mixtape.
- Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement, Lanham Act claims (false endorsement and trademark infringement), New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (right of publicity), and common law unfair competition; they later added a supplemental complaint alleging fraudulent transfers/alter ego after Odenat created corporate entities.
- Cross‑motions for summary judgment addressed (inter alia) copyright ownership/copying, right of publicity, likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, affirmative defenses (fair use, implied license, estoppel, unclean hands), fraudulent transfer, and third‑party contribution claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright ownership of photos | Plaintiffs: photos deposited as pictorial matter with album registrations; Plaintiffs (labels) are authors as works for hire | Defendants: photos wrongly filed with sound recording registrations; photographers are authors | Court: registrations valid; Circular 56 and 37 C.F.R. allow pictorial matter with Form SR; works‑for‑hire presumption not rebutted — Plaintiffs own copyrights (SJ for Plaintiffs) |
| Copying/protectable elements | Plaintiffs: masthead images are direct, substantially similar copies of copyrighted photos | Defendants: differences (cropping, flipping) and no substantial similarity | Court: actual copying established; images are exact copies beyond de minimis differences — copyright infringement (SJ for Plaintiffs) |
| Right of publicity (§§50–51 NY) | Plaintiffs: use of Jackson’s recognizable likeness for trade/ad without consent | Defendants: images not recognizable; statute of limitations (not pleaded timely) | Court: images are recognizable; amendment to assert SOL denied for lack of diligence; SJ for Plaintiffs on publicity claim |
| Lanham Act false endorsement / trademark infringement | Plaintiffs: use of Jackson persona and "G‑Unit" mark likely to confuse re sponsorship/approval | Defendants: no likelihood of confusion; nominative/fair use; mastheads identify subject matter, not endorsement | Court: factual dispute exists on likelihood of confusion under Polaroid factors; fair use, nominative use not resolved on summary judgment — neither party entitled to SJ |
| Affirmative defenses (fair use, implied license, estoppel, unclean hands) | Defendants assert these defenses to bar liability | Plaintiffs contend defenses lack evidentiary support | Court: fair use, implied license, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands fail as matter of law and are stricken; defenses cannot bar Plaintiffs’ copyright and publicity SJ |
| Fraudulent transfer / alter ego | Plaintiffs: Odenat transferred site and mark to entities in not‑for‑value transactions | Defendants: transfers legitimate business purposes | Court: genuine issues of fact; neither party entitled to SJ on fraudulent transfer/veil piercing claims |
| Third‑party claims against Mondesir (contributory copyright/trademark; Lanham Act; contribution under NY law) | Odenat seeks contribution/indemnity from Mondesir for alleged authorization; claims that Mondesir placed URL on mixtape | Mondesir: no contribution under federal IP law; statute of limitations; insufficiency of pleading | Court: contribution not available for an infringer under federal copyright/trademark (SJ for Mondesir on those claims); Odenat may seek contribution under NY law and Lanham Act claim survives (motion denied); fees request premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (likelihood‑of‑confusion multi‑factor test)
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (§ 43(a) false endorsement principles)
- Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (substantial similarity / de minimis use analysis)
- Kelly‑Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2013) (Polaroid factors in celebrity endorsement context)
- Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Island Transp. Corp., 862 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1988) (no federal right of contribution for infringers)