Opinion
Civil Action No. SA-06-CA-0133-XR.
June 1, 2006
ORDER
On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff's Application for Entry of Default Judgment (docket no. 6). This is an action for copyright infringement arising from Defendant Angelic Whitting's alleged unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion picture. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, without its permission or consent, has used and continues to use an online media distribution system to distribute to the public, including by making available for distribution to others, Plaintiff's copyrighted motion picture. Specifically, the copyrighted motion picture allegedly reproduced and distributed or made available is The Grudge. Plaintiff further alleges that the acts of infringement were willful and intentional, in disregard of and with indifference to Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) for Defendant's infringement, as well as costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Plaintiff also seeks permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503.
Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2006. Plaintiff has submitted proof of service that Defendant Angelic Whitting was personally served with a summons and complaint on February 16, 2006. The time for answering expired, and Plaintiff moved for an entry of default. The Clerk entered default against Defendant on April 5, 2006. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment.
Plaintiff seeks the following relief provided by the Copyright Act: (1) an injunction prohibiting Defendant from further infringing Plaintiff's copyrighted motion picture through use of the internet; (2) statutory damages in the amount of $6,000 and (3) an award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $1,916.59.
ANALYSIS
Defendant's default concedes the truth of the allegations of the Complaint as to Defendant's liability, but not damages. Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515, 521, 524-25 (5th Cir. 2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) states that "a judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the party's pleadings." FED. R. CIV. P. 54(c). Damages may ordinarily not be awarded without a hearing or a demonstration by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts. United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979). However, where the amount of damages and/or costs can be determined with certainty by reference to the pleadings and supporting documents and where a hearing would not be beneficial, a hearing is unnecessary. James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).
A. Statutory Damages
Plaintiff seek statutory damages for copyright infringement in the amount of $6,000.00. An infringer of copyright is liable for either the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer or statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(a). "The copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Furthermore, if the Court finds that "the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200," but if the Court finds "that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000." 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
The trial court must award damages according to the number of separate and independent works infringed. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Xanthas, Inc., 855 F.2d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 1988). However, the damages to be assessed are within the broad discretion of the trial court as outlined in the statute. Id. In this case, Plaintiff seeks more than the statutory minimum of $750.00 for the infringement because, at the time of the alleged infringement, the movie had not been released on DVD/home video, and thus Defendant should have known that no legal copies were then available and such unauthorized distribution causes greater economic harm to the copyright holder because it tends to impact both the theatrical market and the home video/DVD market. Plaintiff further contends that it is likely that Defendant was infringing more than this one copyright and that the statutory damages should take into consideration Plaintiff's actual damages.
It is not necessary for the Court to hold a hearing as long as it ensures that there is a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established a basis for the requested statutory damages. By her default, Defendant has admitted that she willfully and intentionally reproduced and distributed Plaintiff's copyrighted motion picture without authorization. An award of statutory damages does not require an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff is awarded $6,000 in statutory damages.
B. Costs
Plaintiff alleges that it has incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $1,916.59. Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that "the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party. . . ." 17 U.S.C. § 505. Plaintiff is awarded $1,577.99 in attorney's fees and $250 in costs. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1920 (enumerating expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost); Gaddis v. United States, 381 F.3d 444, 450 (5th Cir. 2004).
C. Permanent Injunction
Plaintiff next seeks to enjoin Defendant from further infringing Plaintiff's copyrights and seeks an order requiring Defendant to destroy all copies of the motion picture made in violation of Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff alleged in its Complaint that Defendant's conduct is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained, will continue to cause Plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money. Further, it alleged that it has no adequate remedy at law.
Section 502 of the Copyright Act authorizes the district court to grant final injunctions to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright. Alcatel USA v. DGI Technologies, 166 F.3d 772, 790 (5th Cir. 1999). Likewise, section 503 provides that the court may impound and destroy any articles used to make infringing copies of a copyrighted material. Id.
Section 502(a) of the Copyright Act states: "Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising under this title may . . . grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). A copyright owner is entitled to an injunction prohibiting further infringing performances if the owner shows: (1) actual success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law, (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage to the defendant, and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Arista Records, Inc. v. Kabani, No. Civ. 3:03-CV-1191-H, 2004 WL 884445, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2004) (Sanders, J.) (citing DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Tech., Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996)). In short, an injunction is appropriate if liability has been established and if there is a substantial likelihood of further infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights. Fermata Int'l Melodies, Inc. v. Champions Golf Club Inc., 712 F.Supp. 1257, 1262 (S.D. Tex. 1989), aff'd, 915 F.2d 1567 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Pac. S. Co., Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1499 (11th Cir. 1984) (a past infringement and a substantial likelihood of future infringements normally entitles the copyright holder to a permanent injunction against the infringer pursuant to 17 U.S.C.A. § 502(a)).
The finding of default against Defendant satisfies the element of success on the merits. Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enter. Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2003); see also Arista Records, Inc. v. Kabani, 2004 WL 884445 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (finding success on the merits after granting plaintiffs' motion for default). Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law because Plaintiff's injury cannot be fully compensated or measured in money. Arista Records, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 2d at 1314. Without an injunction, Plaintiff's copyrighted materials, past and future, would remain vulnerable to copyright infringement by Defendant. See id. Additionally, any damage to Defendant is outweighed by the injury to the Plaintiff. By her default, Defendant has admitted to willfully and repeatedly infringing Plaintiff's copyright. See Jobete Music Co., Inc. v. Hampton, 864 F. Supp. 7 (S.D. Miss. 1994) (stating that an injunction was appropriate where the Defendant continued to infringe the plaintiff's copyright). Defendant's conduct also aids in subjecting Plaintiff's works to continuous infringement by others. Finally, injunctions are regularly issued pursuant to the mandate of Section 502 because the "public interest is the interest in upholding copyright protections." Autoskill, Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1499 (10th Cir. 1993).
All four factors are satisfied in this action, which warrants the issuance of a permanent injunction. Because Defendant has knowingly infringed and shared Plaintiff's copyrighted work, and no evidence has been presented showing that Defendant has ceased the unauthorized activities, the injunction is proper in order to prevent her from further reproducing and distributing copyrighted material. Without an injunction, Plaintiff's copyrighted motion pictures would remain vulnerable to continuous infringement. "Because Plaintiffs continually create new works-works that would be vulnerable to infringement if the injunction were limited to existing works, and that would require new litigation to redress each future infringement-the requested injunction follows standard practice in copyright cases by covering works to be created in the future." Arista Records, Inc., 298 F.Supp. 2d at 1315. Also, destroying the copies that were made without authorization will ensure that Defendant is unable to distribute them. See also 17 U.S.C. § 503(b) ("As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. . . ."). The Court will therefore issue the injunction requested by Plaintiff.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs' Application for Entry of Default Judgment (docket no. 6) is GRANTED as specified in this Order. The Court will enter Judgment on a separate document.