Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-1604
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`STEPHEN YANG,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JOSHUA D. ZUCKERMAN, MD,
`FACS, P.C. d/b/a ZUCKERMAN
`PLASTIC SURGERY
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Stephen Yang alleges as follows:
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. This is a civil action seeking damages and injunction relief for
`
`copyright
`
`infringement and
`
`the unauthorized removal of copyright
`
`management information under the Copyright Act of the United States, 17
`
`U.S.C. § 101 et seq and 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
`
`2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because
`
`Defendant conducts business and/or resides within the State of New York,
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in the State
`
`of New York, and Defendant caused injury to Plaintiff within the State of
`
`New York.
`
`3. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)-(d)
`
`and/or § 1400(a) because this is the judicial district in which a substantial
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-1604
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`STEPHEN YANG,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JOSHUA D. ZUCKERMAN, MD,
`FACS, P.C. d/b/a ZUCKERMAN
`PLASTIC SURGERY
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Stephen Yang alleges as follows:
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. This is a civil action seeking damages and injunction relief for
`
`copyright
`
`infringement and
`
`the unauthorized removal of copyright
`
`management information under the Copyright Act of the United States, 17
`
`U.S.C. § 101 et seq and 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
`
`2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because
`
`Defendant conducts business and/or resides within the State of New York,
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in the State
`
`of New York, and Defendant caused injury to Plaintiff within the State of
`
`New York.
`
`3. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)-(d)
`
`and/or § 1400(a) because this is the judicial district in which a substantial
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2
`
`part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred; this is the
`
`district in which Defendant or its agent resides or may be found; Defendant
`
`conducts regular and substantial business in this district, and has regularly
`
`provided services to residents throughout New York including this district;
`
`and Defendant is a corporate defendant whose contacts with this district are
`
`sufficient to subject it to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4. Plaintiff Stephen Yang (“Yang”) is an individual residing in the State
`
`of New York and this judicial district.
`
`5. Defendant Joshua D. Zuckerman, MD, FACS, P.C (“Zuckerman”) is
`
`a Domestic Professional Service Corporation, doing business as Zuckerman
`
`Plastic Surgery, organized under the laws of New York. Zuckerman has
`
`one or more offices in New York.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6. Plaintiff Stephen Yang is a professional photographer who has
`
`licensed or sold his photographs to dozens of major media outlets such as
`
`The New York Post, The New York Times, Slate, The Wall Street Journal,
`
`Google, Bloomberg News, Getty, and Reuters
`
`7. Yang’s livelihood depends on receiving compensation for the
`
`photographs he produces, and the copyright protection afforded to Yang’s
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3
`
`work deters would be-infringers from copyright and profiting from his work
`
`without permission.
`
`8. Yang is the sole author and exclusive rights holder to an original
`
`photograph of mother and daughter pair, Eva Slikas and Helen Economou
`
`(the “Mother-Daughter Photograph”).
`
`9. A true and correct copy of Yang’s Mother-Daughter Photograph is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`10. Yang registered the Mother-Daughter Photograph with the United
`
`States Copyright Office under registration number VA 2-055-141 (dated
`
`June 22, 2017).
`
`11. The Mother-Daughter Photograph was first published on the New
`
`York Post (“Post Article”) website on May 6, 2017 in an article titled
`
`“Forget mani-pedis – now moms and daughters bond over Botox”.
`
`12. Yang’s Photograph as featured in the Post Article included a credit
`
`below the bottom left corner crediting the Mother-Daughter Photograph to
`
`Yang. A true and correct copy of the Post Article and close-up of the
`
`Mother-Daughter with the photo credit are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`13. Defendant Zuckerman is the owner and operator of the website
`
`www.zuckermanplasticsurgery.com (“Zuckerman’s Website”).
`
`14. According to Zuckerman’s Website, Zuckerman “is ranked #3 of 531
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4
`
`in the New York area of cosmetic / plastic surgeons” and “has garnered
`
`numerous professional accolades including being named a SuperDoctors
`
`Rising Star or SuperDoctor with features in the The New York Times
`
`Magazine four years running (2014-2017).”.
`
`15. Zuckerman generates content on Zuckerman’s Website to attract user
`
`traffic, promote Zuckerman’s services, and generate business and revenue
`
`for the company.
`
`16. At all relevant times, Zuckerman’s Website was readily accessible to
`
`the general public throughout New York, the United States, and the world.
`
`17. On or about December 9, 2020, Yang discovered that Zuckerman had
`
`used
`
`the Mother-Daughter Photograph at numerous
`
`locations on
`
`Zuckerman’s Website with the photo credit removed and the New York
`
`Post banner emblazoned over the Mother-Daughter Photograph (“Infringing
`
`Posts”). A true and correct copy of the Infringing Posts featuring Yang’s
`
`Photograph is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`18. Yang has never at any point given Zuckerman a license or other
`
`permission to display, distribute or otherwise use the Mother-Daughter
`
`Photograph on Zuckerman’s Website or any other website or platform.
`
`19. Zuckerman (including his employees, agents, contractors, or others
`
`over whom it has responsibility and control) copied and uploaded the
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5
`
`Mother-Daughter Photograph to the Zuckerman Website without Yang’s
`
`consent or authorization.
`
`20. Zuckerman (including his employees, agents, contractors, or others
`
`over whom it has responsibility and control) knowingly omitted Yang’s
`
`photo credit when he uploaded the Mother-Daughter Photograph onto
`
`Zuckerman’s Website because Zuckerman knew he did not have permission
`
`to use the Mother-Daughter Photograph.
`
`21. On or about December 29, 2020, Yang, through counsel mailed a
`
`letter
`
`to Zuckerman’s principal place of business demanding
`
`that
`
`Zuckerman immediately cease and desist use of the Mother-Daughter
`
`Photograph and make reasonable compensation to Yang for Zuckerman’s
`
`past and ongoing violations of his copyright.
`
`22. Yang, through his counsel, subsequently made no less than 7
`
`additional attempts to contact and resolve the dispute with Zuckerman by
`
`email, phone, and traditional mail but Zuckerman never responded.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`
`24. Plaintiff did not consent to, authorize, permit, or allow in any manner
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6
`
`the said use of Plaintiff’s unique and original Mother-Daughter Photograph.
`
`25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the
`
`Defendant willfully
`
`infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted Mother-
`
`Daughter Photograph in violation of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, in that it
`
`used, published, communicated, posted, publicized, and otherwise held out
`
`to the public for commercial benefit, the original and unique Mother-
`
`Daughter Photograph of the Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent or
`
`authority, by using them in the Infringing Post on Zuckerman’s Website.
`
`26. As a result of Defendant’s violations of Title 17 of the U.S. Code,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(b), or
`
`statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
`
`504(c).
`
`27. As a result of the Defendant’s violations of Title 17 of the U.S. Code,
`
`the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs as well as
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C § 505 from
`
`Defendant.
`
`28. Plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief to prevent or restrain
`
`infringement of his copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`FALSIFICATION, REMOVAL AND ALTERATION OF
`COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202
`
`29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`
`30. On information and belief, Defendant knew that Plaintiff created the
`
`Mother-Daughter Photograph because, inter alia, the source of the Mother-
`
`Daughter Photograph that Defendant used to make infringing copies, the
`
`Post Article, specifically attributed the Mother-Daughter Photograph to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`31. Defendant intentionally falsified copyright management information
`
`related to the Mother-Daughter Photograph with the intent to induce,
`
`enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of Plaintiff’s Mother-Daughter
`
`Photograph. Specifically, Defendant purposefully failed to credit Plaintiff in
`
`order to mislead the public into believing that Defendant either owned the
`
`Mother-Daughter Photograph or had legitimately licensed it for use in the
`
`Infringing Post.
`
`32. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a),
`
`and 1202(b).
`
`33. Defendant’s falsification, removal and/or alteration of that copyright
`
`management information was done without Plaintiff’s knowledge or
`
`authorization.
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8
`
`34. Defendant’s falsification of said copyright management information
`
`was done by Defendant intentionally, knowingly, and with the intent to
`
`induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s
`
`copyright in the Mother-Daughter Photograph. Defendant also knew, or had
`
`reason to know, that such removal and/or alteration of copyright
`
`management information would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal
`
`Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright in the Mother-Daughter
`
`Photograph.
`
`35. Plaintiff has sustained significant injury and monetary damages as a
`
`result of Defendant’s wrongful acts as hereinabove alleged, and as a result
`
`of being involuntarily associated with Defendant in an amount to be proven.
`
`36. In the alternative, Plaintiff may elect to recover statutory damages
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3) in a sum of not more than $25,000 from
`
`Defendant for each violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`a)
`
`For a finding that Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s copyright
`
`interest in the Mother-Daughter Photograph by copying and displaying it
`
`for commercial purposes without a license or consent;
`
`b)
`
`For an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9
`
`Defendant’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17
`
`U.S.C. § 504 in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, at Plaintiff’s
`
`election, an award for statutory damages against Defendant in an amount up
`
`to $150,000 for each infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),
`
`whichever is larger;
`
`c)
`
`For statutory damages against Defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1203(c)(3) in a sum of not more than $25,000 for each violation
`
`of 17 U.S.C. § 1202;
`
`d)
`
`For an order pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) enjoining
`
`Defendant from any infringing use of any of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works;
`
`e)
`
`For costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees against
`
`Defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505;
`
`f)
`
`For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests as permitted by
`
`law; and
`
`g)
`
`For any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10
`
`DATED: March 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Rayminh L. Ngo
`Rayminh L. Ngo, Esq.
`EDNY No. RN4834
`HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES
`(Of Counsel)
`1504 Brookhollow Dr., Ste 112
`Santa Ana, CA 92705-5418
`(305) 764-9262
`(714) 597-6559 facsimile
`rngo@higbeeassociates.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01604 Document 1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff Stephen Yang hereby demands a trial by jury in the above matter.
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Rayminh L. Ngo
`Rayminh L. Ngo, Esq.
`EDNY No. RN4834
`HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES
`(Of Counsel)
`1504 Brookhollow Dr., Ste 112
`Santa Ana, CA 92705-5418
`(305) 764-9262
`(714) 597-6559 facsimile
`rngo@higbeeassociates.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
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
