1:22-cv-02864
N.D. Ill.Mar 31, 2025Background
- David Gordon Oppenheimer, a professional photographer, sued Event Ticket Sales, LLC (ETS) and its owner, Guinio Volpone, for unauthorized use of his copyrighted photograph on ETS’s websites.
- Oppenheimer alleged both copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) due to the removal of copyright management information (CMI).
- Oppenheimer discovered uses of the photograph across several URLs between 2019 and 2023, relying on internet archive screenshots as evidence.
- Volpone moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds; Oppenheimer cross-moved for summary judgment on liability and to defeat defenses.
- The court granted in part and denied in part both motions: it found that claims based on 2019 conduct against Volpone were time-barred, but not claims based on later discovered uses; further, Oppenheimer’s failure to authenticate internet archive screenshots precluded summary judgment on liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for claims vs Volpone | Relation-back should apply; discovery rule delays accrual | John Doe rule bars relation-back; claims against Volpone are late | Claims from 2019 time-barred vs Volpone; claims from 2020/2023 are timely |
| Authenticity of internet archive screenshots | Screenshots are admissible via self/attorney affidavits | Not properly authenticated without Internet Archive testimony | Not authenticated for summary judgment; may be admitted with proper witness at trial |
| Copyright validity and originality | Photograph is original and registered; ownership undisputed | Insufficient originality; only a routine concert photo | Photograph is sufficiently original and protected by copyright |
| Willful infringement and liability | Defendants’ repeated post-notice uses show willfulness; Volpone liable individually | Photograph not protectable; general denial of willfulness | Willfulness established if infringement is proven; Volpone potentially liable |
| Affirmative defenses (limitations, invalidity, no claim) | Defenses fail as a matter of law | Statute, invalid copyright, lack of originality, failure to state | Most defenses fail: only 2019 claims vs Volpone barred; defenses as to ETS rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (separate accrual rule for copyright—infringing acts start new limitations periods)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact)
- Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., 586 F.3d 513 (originality standard for photographs under copyright law)
- Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (willful copyright infringement standard)
- Hall v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 469 F.3d 590 (John Doe rule bars relation-back of amended complaints under Rule 15)
- Rodriguez v. McCloughen, 49 F.4th 1120 (differentiating placeholder names from code names for purposes of relation-back)