Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosen v. Hollywood Show, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 4, 2018

BARRY ROSEN
v.
HOLLYWOOD SHOW, LLC ET AL.

          PRESENT HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL‘O'

         Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 13, filed March 2, 2018)

         The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of April 9, 2018 is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On January 1, 2018, plaintiff Barry Rosen filed the instant action against defendants Hollywood Show, LLC (“defendant”), Myron Ross d/b/a “Heroes & Legends, ” and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “defendants”). Dkt 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff asserts claims for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement. Plaintiff contends that he is the photographer and owner of a copyrighted photograph (the “Subject Photograph”) of actress Gena Lee Nolin, and asserts that defendants unlawfully reproduced and distributed an identical or substantially similar copy (the “Accused Image”) of the Subject Photograph. See Compl.

         On March 2, 2018, defendant filed a “notice of demurrer.” Dkt. 13 (“MTD”). On March 19, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition. Dkt. 15 (“Opp'n”). On March 26, 2018, defendant filed a reply. Dkt. 16 (“Reply”).

         Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges the following facts.

         Plaintiff is an individual residing in California. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Studio City, California. Id. ¶ 5. Ross is an individual residing in California and doing business as “Heroes and Legends”. Id. ¶ 6.

         Plaintiff created and owns the Subject Photograph, which was registered with the United States Copyright Office. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that defendants accessed the Subject Photograph and created unauthorized prints that were allegedly published, advertised, distributed, or monetized by defendants. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 13. Plaintiff contends that defendants were provided with notice of the alleged infringement in August 2017, and asserts that the dispute could not be resolved. Id. ¶ 5.

         Plaintiff further alleges that defendant and plaintiff previously entered into a settlement agreement concerning the sale of unauthorized copies of photographs that plaintiff owns, and that according to this agreement, plaintiff is obligated to provide defendant with notice of any vendor's alleged infringement at defendant's events if defendant advertised or identified that vendor at least seven days before the event where the accused prints were offered for sale. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to advertise or identify Legends as a vendor for the event in which the Subject Photograph was allegedly reproduced, and thus defendant was not entitled to notice in advance of the filing of this action. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Photograph and the Accused Image are identical, or at least substantially similar. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff further asserts that each defendant distributed, marketed, and published the Accused Image. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.

         Moreover, plaintiff asserts that defendants are each vicariously liable for the alleged infringement because defendants knowingly induced and profited from the unauthorized reproduction of the Subject Photograph. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had direct financial interests in the unauthorized reproduction, publication, and distribution of the Subject Photograph. Id. ΒΆΒΆ 18-19. Further, each defendant allegedly had the ability ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.