780 F.Supp.3d 779
E.D. Wis.2025Background
- Plaintiff, Prepared Food Photos, Inc., owns a copyright in a photo of raw pork chops, created in 1997 and registered in 2017.
- Defendant NOFAL, LLC, operated Food Town Mart; Sharif Jaber is the sole member and manager. NOFAL's Facebook page posted the photo without permission in 2020.
- Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement and vicarious liability against Jaber, seeking actual or statutory damages.
- Jury found NOFAL liable for infringement (not willful), but not Jaber for vicarious liability; awarded $200 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment to increase damages and find vicarious liability, or alternatively, for a new trial.
- The district court denied Plaintiff’s motions, upholding the jury’s verdict on damages and liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the court amend the jury’s damages award under Rule 59(e)? | Jury ignored undisputed damages evidence; verdict was manifest error. | Rule 59(e) is not the vehicle to override jury factual findings. | Denied; can’t override jury’s factual findings on damages via Rule 59(e). |
| Was Jaber vicariously liable for NOFAL’s infringement? | Jaber profited from NOFAL and had control; verdict against evidence. | No evidence Jaber directly benefited from or knew of the infringement. | Denied; evidence supports jury’s finding of no vicarious liability. |
| Was the jury’s actual damages award against the weight of evidence? | Damages should reflect full licensing/subscription fee ($23,976). | Jury could value single photo much lower; questioned credibility. | Denied; jury reasonably inferred fair market value less than subscription. |
| Did evidentiary rulings or damages determination warrant a new trial? | Exclusion of certain evidence prejudiced Plaintiff, led to unfair trial. | No prejudice; trial was fair; jury verdict supported by evidence. | Denied; no unfairness or prejudice from evidentiary rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hibma v. Odegaard, 769 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1985) (court cannot increase jury damages verdict by additur)
- McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (fair market value is standard for copyright damages)
- Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (direct financial benefit element for vicarious copyright liability)
- Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963) (vicarious copyright liability does not require knowledge of infringement)
- Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Tr. of Chi., 433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2006) (jury damages awards are given strong deference)