Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 316 F.R.D. 45

Photographic Illustrators Corp. (PIC) licensed photographs to Osram Sylvania, Inc. (OSI) under a June 2006 agreement that limited sublicensing (no sublicense for valuable consideration; attribution when practicable).
Orgill, Inc., a distributor and OSI customer, obtained the images from OSI and used them in catalogs; PIC sued Orgill for copyright infringement, DMCA CMI violations, and Lanham Act claims in April 2014.
The court granted summary judgment to defendants on DMCA and Lanham Act claims but denied summary judgment on copyright infringement, holding Orgill received an implied license from OSI and that Orgill’s use must be measured against the 2006 Agreement.
OSI moved to intervene after summary judgment (Dec. 2015), arguing its rights under the 2006 Agreement are essential to resolving PIC’s claims; PIC and Orgill opposed as untimely.
The court denied OSI’s motion to intervene (both as of right and permissive) as untimely, finding OSI waited ~20 months after learning of the suit and cited First Circuit precedent rejecting similar delays.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of OSI's motion to intervene	OSI knew of the suit early and waited too long; motion is untimely	OSI contends it reasonably waited until court interpreted the 2006 Agreement after summary judgment	Motion untimely — delay (~20 months) inexcusable; First Circuit precedent rejects excuse that movant expected suit to fail
Entitlement to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) / 17 U.S.C. § 501(b)	§ 501(b) grants intervention to copyright owners; OSI not timely so claim fails	OSI invoked § 501(b) and alternatively Rule 24(a)(2) (protecting its contract interests)	Court treated timeliness as dispositive for both § 501(b) and Rule 24(a); denied intervention as of right for untimeliness
Adequacy of representation / risk to OSI’s interests	PIC/Orgill adequately represent issues; OSI delayed asserting need to protect interests	OSI argued disposition could impair its contractual/business interests and have broader ramifications	Court found prejudice to existing parties and that any harm to OSI was self-inflicted by delay; representation adequacy not overcome
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	N/A (PIC opposed)	OSI sought permissive intervention sharing common questions of law/fact	Denied — untimeliness applicable and discretion favors denial; no separate timely showing made

Ruiz v. Estelle, 161 F.3d 814 (6th Cir. 1998) (timeliness not required to show inadequate representation for statutory intervenors)
Moosehead Sanitary Dist. v. S. G. Phillips Corp., 610 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1979) (timely motion required for intervention under Rule 24 and discussion of § 501(b) intervention)
R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (four-factor test for intervention as of right; timeliness is gateway)
In re Efron, 746 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014) (delay in moving to intervene because movant thought suit "worthless" was inexcusable)
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Ribo, Inc., 868 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1989) (putative intervenors’ long delay despite knowledge of suit held untimely)
Catering v. Barry, 922 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1990) (delay in intervention can prejudice existing parties and delay trial)