Slate v. American Broadcasting Companies
941 F. Supp. 2d 27
D.D.C.2013Background
- Slate sues ABC for copyright infringement over ~40 seconds of hidden-camera Chicago footage; footage allegedly created with PCC involvement and ownership disputed.
- PCC, Kamau, and Slate collaborated on Chicago and Cincinnati projects involving surreptitious recording of police interactions for news use.
- ABC paid PCC for Cincinnati footage and asserted ownership over resulting material; Slate was listed as PCC director and acted as an investigator.
- Slate later resigned from PCC; Chicago footage was aired on 20/20 in May 2008, with Slate claiming individual ownership.
- Defendants move for summary judgment on ownership/license theories and for dismissal based on bad-faith litigation conduct; Slate pro se after counsel withdrew.
- Court relies on narrow facts to assess estoppel and sanctions, focusing on representations of agency and conduct throughout 2006–2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel bars Slate’s ownership claim | Slate asserts no estoppel; he did not mislead ABC about ownership | ABC relied on Slate/Kamau as PCC agents and paid for work | Equitable estoppel applies; Slate estopped from asserting independent ownership |
| Whether the alleged license to ABC to use footage irrevocably licenses it to ABC | Slate contends no license granted directly to ABC | ABC relied on agency representations and paid for work | Irrevocable license implied by agency representations; defense succeeds on merits |
| Whether bad-faith litigation conduct warrants dismissal | Slate challenges sanctions as excessive | Slate fabricated evidence and abused discovery | Dismissal with prejudice granted for bad-faith conduct |
| Whether summary judgment on the merits is appropriate independent of estoppel | Slate maintains ownership and licensing disputes remain | No genuine issues; estoppel and sanctions suffice | Summary judgment granted on estoppel basis, with alternative dismissal for bad-faith conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on movant to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard: genuine disputes require evidence beyond mere allegations)
- Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2003) (equitable estoppel may bar infringement claims based on plaintiff’s conduct)
- Gleklen v. Democratic Campaign Comm., Inc., 199 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (sanctions and evidence reliability; integrity of submissions)