Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.
904 F. Supp. 2d 530
D. Maryland2012Background
- MRIS obtained a preliminary injunction against AHRN for unauthorized copying of MRIS's copyrighted photographs in August 2012.
- AHRN moved for clarification, reconsideration, or suspension, and MRIS moved for modification of the injunction.
- The court granted AHRN clarification, denied reconsideration and suspension, and granted MRIS modification in part, revising the scope of the injunction.
- The revised injunction focuses on MRIS's copyrighted photographs, not the entire MRIS Database, due to unresolved factual issues about textual elements.
- MRIS sought security under Rule 65(c); the court set the bond at $10,000 and made the injunction effective upon posting.
- The court retained potential to broaden the scope if discovery reveals protected original textual elements or other copyrightable components.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction is sufficiently specific under Rule 65(d)(1) | MRIS contends prior wording was vague about which elements were protected. | AHRN argues the original injunction was sufficiently tied to its conduct and the August 24 Opinion. | Yes; the revised injunction is specific, tied to the August 24 opinion, and delineates prohibited conduct. |
| Whether MRIS must post an injunction bond and the amount | MRIS proposed a security reflecting anticipated costs and losses. | AHRN urged a much larger bond based on projected revenues and intangible harms. | A bond of $10,000 is appropriate. |
| Whether MRIS can pursue infringement on photographs under 204(a) and E-SIGN | Assignments of copyrights in photographs were valid under 204(a) and E-SIGN; MRIS owns the photographs. | Transfers may be void or not satisfy writing/signature requirements; E-SIGN applicability is contested. | Court did not commit clear error; MRIS may bring infringement claims for the photographs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (originality required for copyright protection of compilations)
- Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1974) (specificity of injunction prevents confusion and contempt)
- Xoom, Inc. v. Imageline, Inc., 323 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2003) (owner of a compilation may sue for underlying parts if ownership exists)
- Scardelletti v. Rinckwitz, 68 Fed.Appx. 472 (4th Cir. 2003) (mandatory Rule 65(d) compliance aids appellate review)