Psihoyos v. Pearson Education, Inc.
855 F. Supp. 2d 103
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Psihoyos and Reed sue Pearson and Printer Defendants for copyright infringement over four works.
- Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on infringement and on willfulness; court partially grants/denies, and willfulness motion is denied.
- The four works are: Tyrannosaurus, Monkeys, Iguanodon, and Storm, with registrations cited in the record.
- Relationships with agencies Getty and Science Faction governed licenses, storage rights, and pricing via License, Image Storage, and Preferred Vendor agreements.
- A central dispute is whether an implied license or estoppel arose from course of conduct permitting use before full licensed payment.
- After procedural history, only Pearson and Printer Defendants remain; court decides ownership, standing, and related defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership and standing to sue | Psihoyos/Reed own copyrights; Science Faction not sole holder; plaintiffs retain rights. | Exclusive rights granted to Science Faction could strip standing; third-party licensee may own rights. | Plaintiffs have ownership and standing; no genuine dispute over standing. |
| Implied license defense viability | There was no implied license; defendants copied before license; no meeting of minds. | Course of conduct and agency relation created implied license to publish prior to full license. | Issue of implied license precludes summary judgment; genuine disputes of material fact remain. |
| Estoppel defense viability | Estoppel should not bar infringement; no detrimental reliance by plaintiffs. | Estoppel may bar claims if plaintiff knew and tolerated license-like conduct. | Summary judgment on estoppel denied; issues of fact remain. |
| Willfulness | Infringement was willful due to backdated/retroactive licenses and knowing conduct. | Implied license/estoppel defenses negate willfulness if license implied by conduct. | Willfulness summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 1996) (three-part test for implied nonexclusive licenses (Effects-based))
- Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998) (license vs. covenant distinctions for implied rights)
- Silbers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (standing issues related to exclusive license arrangements)
- Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (implied license framework where work delivered for license)
- Western World Ins. Co. v. Stack Oil, Inc., 922 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1990) (summary judgment standards and evidentiary burden)