Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.65 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`JUSTIN BUELL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SNEAKER BAR DETROIT, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_________________________________/
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`[ECF NO. 10]
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-10185
`Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Justin Buell (“Buell”), copyright owner of a photo of musician Kanye
`
`West gifting a pair of his “Yeezy” sneakers to then-President Barack Obama,
`
`filed this action for copyright infringement. After Defendant failed to respond
`
`or otherwise defend, Buell filed a motion for default judgment. He requests
`
`that the Court grant actual damages for copyright infringement, as well as
`
`costs incurred in filing this case.
`
`After review of the record, the Court GRANTS Buell’s Motion for
`
`Default Judgment.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`JUSTIN BUELL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SNEAKER BAR DETROIT, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_________________________________/
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`[ECF NO. 10]
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-10185
`Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Justin Buell (“Buell”), copyright owner of a photo of musician Kanye
`
`West gifting a pair of his “Yeezy” sneakers to then-President Barack Obama,
`
`filed this action for copyright infringement. After Defendant failed to respond
`
`or otherwise defend, Buell filed a motion for default judgment. He requests
`
`that the Court grant actual damages for copyright infringement, as well as
`
`costs incurred in filing this case.
`
`After review of the record, the Court GRANTS Buell’s Motion for
`
`Default Judgment.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.66 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Buell creates photographic images that he licenses to online and print
`
`publications. On October 9, 2015, Buell authored an exclusive photograph
`
`of musician Kanye West gifting a pair of his “Yeezy” sneakers to former
`
`President Barack Obama. On July 23, 2018, the United States Copyright
`
`Office registered the photograph under Registration No. VA 2-117-120.
`
`Defendant Sneaker Bar (“Sneaker”) owns and operates a monetized
`
`website known as www.sneakerbardetroit.com. On August 12, 2019, Buell
`
`says he observed the photograph in question on Sneaker’s website in a blog
`
`post dated January 10, 2016. Buell says that without permission from him,
`
`Sneaker knowingly copied and displayed the photograph in violation of U.S.
`
`copyright laws. Because Sneaker’s website is monetized and contains paid
`
`advertisements, Buell says that Sneaker profited from the posting of his
`
`photo.
`
`Buell filed this action on January 28, 2022. He alleges that Sneaker
`
`committed infringement of his copyright, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501.
`
`Because Sneaker failed to respond, the Clerk entered default. Buell them
`
`moved for default judgment, asking the Court to grant (1) actual damages
`
`and profits for copyright infringement in the amount of $9,930.00; and (2)
`
`costs in the amount of $402.00.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.67 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`
`The Court may enter a default judgment against a defendant who fails
`
`to plead or otherwise defend against an action. To obtain a judgment by
`
`default, the moving party must first request for the Clerk of the Court to enter
`
`a default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Shepard Claims Serv. Inc. v. Williams
`
`Darrah & Assoc., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986). Upon entry of a default,
`
`all well-pled allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint are deemed admitted.
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 846 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 9, 2006)
`
`(citing Visioneering Construction v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty, 661 F.2d
`
`119, 124 (6th Cir. 1981)).
`
`A default judgment on well-pled allegations only establishes a
`
`defendant’s liability; the plaintiff must still establish the extent of damages.
`
`RQSI Global Asset Allocation Master Fund, Ltd. v. APERCU International
`
`PR LLC, 2019 WL 1922052, at *4 (internal citations omitted).
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The Court Grants Buell’s Request for Actual Damages.
`
`Buell requests actual damages and profits for copyright infringement.
`
`Buell’s request is reasonable. The Copyright Act provides that
`
`copyright protection begins the moment the “tangible” work is created;
`
`registration with the Copyright Office is not required for a work to be
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.68 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`protected under U.S. copyright law. 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(a) (West) (“Copyright
`
`protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
`
`medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can
`
`be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with
`
`the aid of a machine or device.”) On the other hand, registration with the
`
`Copyright Office is required to file suit. 17 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (West).
`
`Buell’s copyright protections began the day he authored the West
`
`photograph, on October 9, 2015. Sneaker’s copyright infringement began the
`
`day it reproduced Buell’s photo without his permission on January 10, 2016.
`
`Buell’s potential damages began accruing on that day. And because Buell
`
`registered his copyright on July 23, 2018, he became eligible to file suit for
`
`copyright infringement on that date.
`
`The Copyright Act also includes a statute of limitations on copyright
`
`infringement actions. Specifically, the Act provides that “[n]o civil action shall
`
`be maintained . . . unless it is commenced within three years after the claim
`
`accrued.” 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The Sixth Circuit’s limitations period is
`
`governed by a “discovery rule,” under which a cause of action accrues when
`
`the injured party learns, or should have learned, of the injury. Roger Miller
`
`Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ'g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 390 (6th Cir. 2007) (“A
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.69 Filed 11/02/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`copyright infringement claim accrues when a plaintiff knows of the potential
`
`violation or is chargeable with such knowledge.”) (internal quotes omitted).
`
`Buell discovered the post on August 12, 2019. He had until August 12,
`
`2022 to file this action. Because Buell filed this action on January 28, 2022,
`
`he does not run afoul of the statute of limitations and is entitled to damages
`
`accruing from the day Sneaker’s copyright infringement began (January 10,
`
`2016) to now.
`
`Under the Copyright Act, “an infringer of copyright is liable for either (1)
`
`the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the
`
`infringer . . . or (2) statutory damages . . .” 17 U.S.C.A. § 504(a) (West).
`
`Generally, the amount of actual damages in a copyright infringement action
`
`is calculated with reference to the loss in the fair market value of the
`
`copyright, often measured by the profits lost as a result of the infringement.
`
`ECIMOS, LLC v. Carrier Corp., 971 F.3d 616, 632 (6th Cir. 2020).
`
`Buell claims that he lost $9,930.00 in profits because of Sneaker’s
`
`infringement. To calculate this, Buell first offers the Getty Images licensing
`
`fee of a photograph of Barack Obama with basketball star Michael Jordan,
`
`which is currently priced at $4,965.00 for use for 3 years. [ECF No. 10-2,
`
`PageID.64]. Because this number equates to $1,655 per year, Buell then
`
`multiplied $1,655 by 6 (for the 6 years Defendant engaged in copyright
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.70 Filed 11/02/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`infringement) to arrive at his $9,930.00 damage figure. Buell says that he
`
`believes he would have charged Sneaker $9,930.00 to license his
`
`photograph for non-exclusive commercial use for 6 years.
`
`The Court believes this to be a reasonable basis for Buell’s
`
`computation of damages. The cited Getty Images price is adequate evidence
`
`of a comparable licensing fee for a similarly situated photograph.
`
`B. The Court Grants Buell’s Request for Costs.
`Buell requests $402.00 in litigation costs.
`
`The Copyright Act permits the prevailing party to recover its full costs.
`
`17 U.S.C.A. § 505 (West) (“In any civil action under this title, the court in its
`
`discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other
`
`than the United States or an officer thereof.”). The grant of fees and costs
`
`under the Copyright Act is the rule rather than the exception, and they should
`
`be awarded routinely. Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747, 773 (6th Cir. 2012)
`
`(internal quotes omitted).
`
`In support of his claim for $402.00 in costs, Buell offers the declaration
`
`of his counsel, which states that “Plaintiff incurred and seeks reimbursement
`
`for costs in the amount of $402.00, the filing fee for which Plaintiff requests
`
`this Court to take judicial notice.” [ECF No. 10-1, PageID.51]. The Court does
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10185-VAR-JJCG ECF No. 11, PageID.71 Filed 11/02/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`so and finds that Buell’s request for costs in the amount of $402.00 is
`
`reasonable.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court GRANTS Buell’s Motion for Default Judgment. Sneaker Bar
`
`Detroit, LLC is liable to Buell in the amount of $9,930.00 for actual damages.
`
`Additionally, Sneaker is liable for $402.00 in costs.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 11/2/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Victoria A. Roberts
`Victoria A. Roberts
`United States District Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
