Schatz v. Ben Greenfield Life — Court Awards $7,500 for Willful Photo Infringement

Background

Photographer Howard Schatz and co-owner Beverly Ornstein alleged that Ben Greenfield Life LLC copied a registered photograph showing a runner poised on a track and displayed it on a Pinterest account without permission. Counsel contacted the company twice, but it did not respond or appear in the lawsuit.

After the clerk entered default, the copyright owners requested $30,000 in statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court still independently examined jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the infringement allegations, and the appropriate remedy.

The Court’s Holding

The court entered default judgment against Ben Greenfield Life LLC. The admitted allegations established ownership of a registered copyright and unauthorized copying and display of the photograph. Continued use after notice supported a finding of willfulness.

The court declined to award the requested $30,000. There was one use of one photograph, and the owners provided no evidence of a licensing history, actual loss, or the defendant’s profits. Balancing willfulness and deterrence against the limited record and the need to avoid a windfall, the court awarded $7,500 in statutory damages. It also awarded $945 in attorney’s fees, $445 in costs, and postjudgment interest.

Key Takeaways

• A default does not automatically establish legal liability; the complaint still must plead a valid copyright claim.
• Ignoring infringement notices can support willfulness, but willfulness does not guarantee the statutory maximum.
• Evidence of ordinary license fees, actual harm, and infringer profits can materially affect a statutory-damages award.

Why It Matters

The decision offers a practical damages benchmark for a single unauthorized online use of a photograph. Courts may enhance an award where a defendant ignores notice, while still tying the amount to the scale of the use and the proof of economic harm.