Minden Pictures, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc.
929 F. Supp. 2d 962
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Minden Pictures, Inc. licenses stock photos to publishers; Pearson Education, Inc. purchased licenses for use in textbooks.
- Minden asserts standing to sue on behalf of photographers via two mechanisms: copyright assignments creating co-ownership and agency agreements granting representation rights.
- Agency agreements were largely not produced; 500 pages were later disclosed late and were stricken by the court.
- Minden backdated signatures on some agency agreements and copyright assignments; Larry Minden admitted “faking it” in communications to backdate.
- Court limits standing analysis to the copyright assignments and precludes reliance on the agency agreements due to discovery violations and improper disclosure.
- Court grants Pearson summary judgment on standing, holding the assignments only convey a bare right to sue, not ownership rights; no other standing basis found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency agreements give Minden standing to sue. | Minden relies on agency agreements for standing. | Agency agreements were not disclosed; not a valid standing basis. | Agency agreements stricken; no standing from them. |
| Whether copyright assignments confer standing to sue. | Assignments grant co-ownership and standing to sue. | Assignments are disguised bare-right-to-sue; do not confer standing. | Assignments do not provide standing; only bare right to sue. |
| Whether backdated signatures taint standing and allow relief. | Backdating does not affect standing if agreements valid. | Backdating demonstrates deceptive conduct; impacts credibility and validity. | Court rejects backdating to support standing; remains with no standing. |
| Whether the court should preclude the agency agreements as a sanction. | Disclosures were late but not willful misconduct. | Violations were strategic and prejudicial; preclusion warranted. | Agency agreements stricken; Minden precluded from relying on them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (bare right to sue prohibited under 501(b))
- Nafal v. Carter, 540 F.Supp.2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (disguised assignment of cause of action invalid)
- Pacific State Bank v. Greene, 110 Cal.App.4th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (parol evidence to interpret contract language)
- Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985) (courts may dismiss for willful deceptive conduct)