KENT BAKER, Plaintiff, -against- URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. and URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE, INC., Defendants., 254 F. Supp. 2d 346

Summary

It was undisputed that the wholesaler/retailer used the photograph without authorization from the photographer or from a book publisher who had allegedly purchased rights to the photograph. Because the photographer could prove no actual damages, the wholesaler/retailer argued that the only other damages recoverable by him were the wholesaler/retailer's profits (a maximum amount of damages $ 3,896) on sales of the photograph. The district court found that by presenting specific evidence that the photographer's agreement with the book publisher was ambiguous created a genuine fact issue as to whether the photographer had established ownership of a valid copyright, and thus summary judgment was not proper on the issue of copyright infringement. However, the court determined that where the highest licensing fee that the photographer had ever received for a photograph was $ 88 and that even if this fee were to be multiplied by a factor of ten, which the photographer had suggested, the ...