Yamashita v. Scholastic Inc., 936 F.3d 98

Background

Photographer Michael Yamashita (and his corporate vehicle) licensed Corbis to grant limited licenses for his photographs; Corbis licensed 119 images to Scholastic.
Yamashita sued Scholastic for copyright infringement, alleging Scholastic exceeded the Corbis licenses (e.g., printing extra copies, foreign distribution, post‑expiration use) but did not identify which license terms were breached for which images (Exhibit 1 listed images and invoices; most "License Limits" fields were blank).
District Court transferred venue to S.D.N.Y., then dismissed Yamashita’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) as speculative and not plausibly alleging how the licenses were exceeded; dismissal was with prejudice.
Yamashita sought leave to file a Proposed Amended Complaint (PAC) adding three image exhibits and four common‑law claims; the District Court allowed amendment only as to one Row‑80 image, rejected the rest as futile, and later the Row‑80 claim was dismissed by stipulation.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed (de novo for legal questions) whether a copyright holder who knows a license exists must plead, with specificity, the license limits and how they were breached to state a plausible claim. The Court affirmed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Complaint sufficiently pleaded copyright infringement where defendant undisputedly held licenses	Yamashita: naming images and alleging Scholastic exceeded unspecified license limits suffices; details are peculiarly within Scholastic’s control	Scholastic: plaintiff must plead specific license terms and how each was exceeded; generic suspicion is speculative	Held: Complaint insufficient—when defendant's license is undisputed, plaintiff must plausibly allege the specific license limits and breaches for each work
Whether Bourne burden rule requires copyright owner to prove unauthorized use when scope is disputed	Yamashita: burden should not preclude pleading when licenses were issued by agent (Corbis) and photographer lacks access to details	Scholastic: under Bourne, where scope is at issue the copyright owner bears burden to prove defendant exceeded the license	Held: Court applies Bourne—plaintiff must allege facts showing how license scope was exceeded; mere conjecture fails
Whether Proposed Amended Complaint cured pleading defects	Yamashita: PAC’s added exhibits (three images) and factual allegations cure vagueness and justify broader discovery	Scholastic: PAC still fails to identify license terms breached or tie exhibits to specific limits	Held: PAC inadequate except for Row‑80 image (which was later dismissed by stipulation); denial of leave to amend re: other images was not error
Whether plaintiff could add common‑law claims dependent on PVAs to which he is not a party	Yamashita: should be allowed to plead related state‑law claims	Scholastic: claims depend on Corbis‑Scholastic PVAs and might require joinder of Corbis	Held: District Court properly denied leave to add common‑law claims (addressed in accompanying summary order)

Key Cases Cited

Kelly v. L.L. Cool J, 145 F.R.D. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (framework identifying elements and specificity often required in copyright pleadings)
Bourne v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621 (2d Cir. 1995) (where license scope is disputed, copyright owner bears burden to prove defendant’s copying was unauthorized)
Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright infringement requires ownership and copying of original elements)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints must raise plausibility, not mere possibility)
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (Twombly does not require plaintiffs to plead evidentiary detail; analysis depends on context)
Spinelli v. National Football League, 903 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2018) (defendant bears burden to prove existence of a license where plaintiffs allege unlicensed use)
In re McGraw‑Hill Global Ed. Holdings LLC, 909 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 2018) (contrasting approach on pleading burdens where photographers lacked direct access to license details)