Krist v. Scholastic, Inc.
253 F. Supp. 3d 804
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- Photographer Bob Krist sues Scholastic for alleged copyright infringement of 45 registered photographs licensed to Scholastic by Corbis under Preferred Pricing Agreements (PPAs).
- Krist alleges Scholastic exceeded licensed uses (extra copies, distribution outside authorized area, electronic/derivative/foreign uses, and uses beyond time limits) and cites similar prior suits against Scholastic by other photographers.
- Scholastic moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York based on forum-selection clauses in the PPAs; it also sought to limit discovery to statute-of-limitations issues.
- The District Court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and found Krist’s factual allegations (including that infringements occurred “shortly after” licensing and that infringement details are largely within Scholastic’s control) sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
- The Court rejected Scholastic’s argument that Corbis’s PPAs’ forum-selection clauses bind Krist, concluding the clauses govern disputes “regarding” the PPAs and do not reach independent Copyright Act claims or bind non-signatories like Krist.
- The Court also denied transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (movant bears burden) and refused to limit discovery to statute-of-limitations issues given factual disputes about tolling and the likely overlap between merits and timeliness evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to dismiss — sufficiency of infringement pleading | Krist: alleged specific categories of unauthorized uses and that details are within defendant's control; "shortly after" licensing suffices | Scholastic: complaint lacks detail on what acts and when infringement occurred; pleadings insufficient | Denied — allegations plausible under Twombly/Iqbal; specificity not required pre-discovery when defendant controls facts |
| Enforceability of PPAs' forum-selection clauses over Krist | Krist: copyright claim enforces statutory rights, not disputes "regarding" PPAs; he is a non-signatory not bound by clauses | Scholastic: PPAs limit scope and contain NY forum clauses that should govern related disputes | Clauses do not apply — copyright claim is not a dispute regarding the PPA and Krist, a non-party, did not assent and is not a third-party beneficiary or principal-agent bound by the PPAs |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) absent forum clause | Krist: chosen home forum entitled to deference; defendant can litigate in plaintiff's forum; convenience favors plaintiff | Scholastic: convenience and some PPA contacts favor Southern District of New York | Denied — defendant failed to meet burden; private interest factors favor Krist and public factors are neutral |
| Limiting discovery to statute-of-limitations issue | Krist: timeliness depends on discovery rule and facts within defendant’s control; merits and timeliness overlap | Scholastic: claims may be time-barred; limit discovery to timeliness and damages within three years | Denied — factual dispute over tolling; merits and timeliness evidence overlap; premature to restrict discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (pleading standard and Iqbal/Twombly framework)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (U.S. 2013) (effect of valid forum-selection clauses on transfer analysis)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (§ 1404(a) private/public interest factors)
- Steinmetz v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (PPAs’ forum clauses do not govern non-party copyright claims)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (U.S. 2014) (limitations and equitable defense discussion in copyright context)
- Raucci v. Candy & Toy Factory, 145 F. Supp. 3d 440 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (application of discovery rule and tolling to copyright suits)