Levine v. Elliot Landy & Landyvision, Inc.
860 F. Supp. 2d 184
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Landy and Landyvision sue Levine, Sackett, and Brunswick for multiple claims arising from Woodstock photographs and licensing disputes.
- Landy alleges ownership of copyright registrations for six photographs and that Levine/Sackett/Brunswick infringed by displaying, distributing, and licensing those works.
- Parties previously settled a 1994 Woodstock book dispute; Landy helped license Levine’s photos and supplied high-resolution scans for a potential reprint.
- In 2008 Sackett retrieved Levine’s photos and a hard drive was provided to Landy; Landy later alleges unauthorized copying and distribution.
- Levine and Sackett later published works using Landy’s connections; Landy alleges fraudulent registrations, harassment, and interference with business relationships.
- Defendants moved to dismiss most counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6); the court must assess plausibility of each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement plausibility | Landy asserts valid registrations and unauthorized use by Levine/Sackett/Brunswick. | Levine owns the copyrights and cannot infringe his own works; no specific acts alleged. | Count I plausibly stated; denial of dismissal. |
| Contributory copyright infringement plausibility | Defendants induced/authorized third-party infringement of Landy’s photos. | No direct infringement by defendants; Levine may authorize use; knowledge lacking. | Count II plausibly stated; denial of dismissal. |
| Tortious interference with business relationships plausibility | Defendants interfered with Landy’s relationships with Redferns/Getty, Fetjaine, Warner Brothers, Intercontinental. | No specific facts of interference; some relationships not harmed; merit of related suit not clearly interfering. | Count IV plausibly stated; denial of dismissal. |
| Tortious interference with contract plausibility | Landy had contracts with Intercontinental; defendants knew and procured breach. | No specific contract alleged; no actual breach pled. | Count V dismissed. |
| Fraudulent inducement plausibility | Promises of collaboration and investment induced Landy to incur costs and rely to Landy’s detriment. | No particularity; mere discussion of plans without concrete promise to perform. | Count VI denied; sufficient facts alleged to state a prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading adequacy requires plausibility, not mere speculation)
- Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.2010) (copyright ownership and infringement pleading standards)
- Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.3d 98 (2d Cir.2002) (presumption of validity for registrations; rebuttable)
- Sygma Photo News, Inc. v. High Soc. Magazine, Inc., 778 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1985) (joint and several liability for infringement)
- Faulkner v. Nat'l Geographic Enters. Inc., 409 F.3d 26 (2d Cir.2005) (contributory infringement concepts)
- Kirch v. Liberty Media Corp., 449 F.3d 388 (2d Cir.2006) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Crigger v. Fahnestock & Co., 443 F.3d 230 (2d Cir.2006) (fraud pleading standards under Rule 9(b))
- Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir.1986) (standards for vexatious litigant injunctions)