Richard N. Bell v. Cameron Taylor, 827 F.3d 699

Background

Richard Bell, copyright owner of a daytime photo of the Indianapolis skyline, sued multiple defendants for unauthori.zed display of his photo on their business websites; he later discovered one defendant (Taylor) had displayed a different Bell photo (a nighttime skyline).
Bell filed the principal action (2013 Case) alleging infringement and state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on damages (Aug. 26, 2014) and later on injunctive/declaratory relief, entering final judgment (Dec. 4, 2015).
Bell sought to amend his complaint to correct the misidentified photo (to allege Taylor used the nighttime photo) well after the amendment deadline; the district court denied leave to amend for undue delay and prejudice.
Bell filed a second suit (2014 Case) against Taylor asserting infringement based on the nighttime photo; the district court dismissed it as barred by res judicata; Bell’s post-appeal attempts to relitigate were denied.
The district court found Bell established ownership and that some defendants (O’Brien, Insurance Concepts, Cheatham) had displayed the daytime photo, but Bell failed to prove actual damages or a causal nexus to defendants’ revenues; discovery requests for extensive tax returns and a traffic spreadsheet were denied as overbroad or duplicative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor was entitled to summary judgment because complaint alleged the wrong photo	Bell: Taylor should have told him he sued over the wrong (daytime) photo; Taylor waived defense by not pleading it as affirmative defense	Taylor: Answer denied posting the photo alleged; denial suffices under Rule 8(b)	Affirmed: denial is not an affirmative defense; Taylor gave adequate notice and summary judgment for Taylor proper
Whether district court abused discretion denying leave to file fourth amended complaint after deadline	Bell: Delay excusable; Taylor’s responses concealed the error	Defs: Bell had notice in discovery and delayed nearly eight months; amendment would prejudice defendants	Affirmed: undue delay, lack of good cause under Rule 16(b), prejudice to defendants
Whether the 2014 Case against Taylor is barred by res judicata	Bell: No final judgment existed when district court invoked res judicata; he lacked full/fair opportunity to litigate nighttime photo	Taylor: Claims arise from same core facts; earlier judgment as to Taylor was final for preclusion purposes	Affirmed: identity of causes/parties and final judgment satisfied; claim precluded
Whether Bell proved damages and was entitled to discovery (tax returns, traffic spreadsheet)	Bell: Affidavit and website licensing price show fair market value; tax returns and traffic data could show causal nexus	Defs: Bell provided no concrete sales/licensing evidence; tax returns overbroad and would not establish causal nexus; spreadsheet duplicative	Affirmed: Bell failed to show non-speculative actual damages or causal nexus; discovery denials not abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Bell v. Taylor, 791 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal holding initial judgment not final for purposes of appeal)
JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007) (elements of copyright infringement)
Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servs. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement for copyright)
McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (actual damages and infringer's profits framework)
On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits on speculative damages and fair market value evidence)
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (interaction of Rule 15 and Rule 16 good-cause standard)
Roboserve, Inc. v. Kato Kagaku Co., Ltd., 121 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1997) (claim preclusion requires same cause, parties, and final judgment)
Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2011) (policy purposes of res judicata)