7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

1/8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MUENCH PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.,- - - - - -X

PIa ifev.

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HAPUBLISHING COMPANY RCOURTandR.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY

Defendants .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

USDCSDNYJ)()CmAEl'JTELECTIH :N1CA1.l:Y FILEDDOC II: ... ..... / /'DATE FILED: :iP r/ID

, Io9 - cv -2 6 6 9 ( LAP)MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United S ta t e s s t r i c t Judge:On May 4, 2010, th e Cour t granted in pa r t and denied in

pa r t Defendants ' motion fo r summary judgment. 1 See Muench vHoughton Miff l in Harcourt Publ 'g Co. & R . R ~ Donnelley & SonsCo., 09-CV-2669 (LAP), 2010 WL 1838874 a t *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 4,2010). The fac t s and procedura l h i s to ry of t h i s case are s e tfo r th in the Cour t ' s p r i o r opinion t h i s case ,"Opinion") , f ami l i a r i t y with which i s assumed. Id . P l a i n t i f f shave now moved recons idera t ion and reargument of the Opinionpursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) o f th e Federa l Rules of Civ i lProcedure and Local Rule 6.3 , aiming (1) th e Court d id

1 Orig ina l ly , Defendants had f i l ed a motion to dismiss under Rule12(b) (6) of Federa l Rules Civ i l Procedure , however,Cour t conver ted Defendants ' motion to dismiss in to a motion fo rsummary judgment pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civ i l Procedure12 (d) . Muenc:h v, Houghton Miff l in HarcourtmmPubl' g Co. & R. R.Donnelley & Sons Co., 09-CV-2669 (LAP), 2010 WL 1838874 a t *9(S . D . N . Y. May 4, 2010).

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 8

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

2/8

not cons ider 17 U.S.C. 411(b) as a con t ro l l ing s t a t u t e and (2)t ha t P l a i n t i f f ' s supplemental r eg i s t r a t i on c e r t i f i c a t e s from theCopyright Office amounts to newly discovered evidence . For th efol lowing reasons , the motion i s GRANTED in p a r t and DENIED inpa r t . As exp la ined here in l th e u l t conclus ions of theOpinion s tand as previous ly ordered .LEGAL STANDARD

Motions fo r recons idera t ion are c t ly eva lua ted and

genera l ly are "denied unless moving par ty can point tocon t ro l l ing decis ions or t ha t t he cour t over looked-mat te rs 1in o ther words, t ha t might reasonably be expected to a l t e r theconclusion reached by cour t . " Shrader v. CSX Transp. , I n c ' l70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir . 1995). "The major grounds j u s t i f y ingrecons idera t ion are an in te rvening change of con t ro l l ing law 1the ava i l ab i l i t y of new evidence 1 o r the need t o co r rec t a c l e a re r ro r o r prevent mani t us t i c e . " Virgin At l . Airways Ltd.v . N a t ' l Mediation Bd' l 956 F.2d 1245 1 1255 (2d Cir . 1992).DISCUSSION

1 . 17 U.S.C.P l a i n t i f f / s motion for recons idera t ion i s GRANTED i n so fa r

as it points out t ha t th e Opinion omit ted to 17 U.S.C. 411(b) in scuss ing th e e f f e c t of Corbis Corpora t ion/s("Corbis") omis on of the authors ' names o r t i t l e s of th eimages on i t s c o l l e c t i ve works r eg i s t r a t i on was a mere

2

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 8

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

3/8

"inaccuracyll t ha t does not render the ind iv idua l imagesunregis tered under the Copyright Act .

Upon recons idera t ion , the motion to vaca te th e Cour t ' sOrder i s DENIED, as i s the motion to rea rgue . p l a i n t i f f ' smotion argues t ha t the Court should have held t ha t sec t ion411(b) of the Copyright Act "saves ll i t s r eg i s t r a t i on because theomission of P l a i n t i f f ' s name and the title o f i t s images fromthe compi la t ion appl ica t ion i s a mere "inaccuracy.1I See P l .Mot. to Reconsider a t 3-6) . Pla in t i f f i s essen t i a l l y asking theCourt to read sec t ion 411(b) a way t ha t s t r a in s the p la inmeaning of the words. The Court decl ines to do so .

Sect ion 411(b) preserves r e g i s t r a t i ons t ha t s u f f e r fromsome inaccuracy in the r eg i s t r a t i on app l i ca t ion provided t ha t(1) the inaccuracy was inc luded withou t knowledge t ha t theinformat ion was inaccura te and (2) the inaccuracy would not havecaused the Regis ter of Copyrights to refuse th e r eg i s t r a t i on .See 17 U.S.C. 411(b).2 Sec t ion 411(b) , however, does not a f f e c tthe r e su l t here .

2 17 U.S.C. 411(b) reads :(b) (1) A ce r t i f i ca t e of r eg i s t r a t ion s a t i s f i e s the requi rements of t h i ssect ion and sec t ion 412, r egard les s of whether th e c e r t i f i c a t e con ta ins anyinaccurate informat ion, un less -

(A) the inaccura te informat ion was inc luded on th e app l i ca t ion fo rcopyr ight r eg i s t r a t i on with knowledge t h a t it wa s inaccura te i and(B) the inaccuracy of the informat ion, if known, would have caused theRegis te r o f Copyrights to refuse r eg i s t r a t i on .

3

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 8

http:///reader/full/inaccuracy.1Ihttp:///reader/full/inaccuracy.1I

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

4/8

Although P l a i n t i f f ' s reading of sec t ion 411(b) i s co r r ec tas appl ied to r e g i s t r a t i on app l ica t ions t h a t con ta inun in ten t iona l ly inaccura te information, see 17 U.S.C. 411(b) ,the Cour t has found a l ready t h a t Corbis submit ted an accura tecompila t ion r e g i s t r a t i on app l ica t ion . See Muench 2010 WL1838874 a t *9. Thus t h a t r e g i s t r a t i on does not come within th eambit sec t ion 411(b) . P l a i n t i f f ' s content ion t h a t th eapp l ica t ion was meant to cover each i nd iv idua l work and f a i l u r eto include those names was an " inaccuracy" , (see P l. Mot. toReconsider a t 7), i s unpersuas ive. This Court w i l l not readsec t ion 411 so broad ly as to save " in tended" r eg i s t r a t i ons t ha tnever were presented to th e Copyright Off ice to beg in wi th .Accord Alaska Stock v. Houghton Miff l in Harcourt Publ 'g & R.R.Donnel ley & Sons Co., 3:09-cv-0061 HRH (D. Alaska Sept . 21,2010) . Omission of the au thors name, image title, and connect ionbetween th e two i s not a mere inaccuracy; it i s an en t i r efa i lure to comply with th e requirements of sec t ion 409.P la in t i f f ' s re l i ance on sec t ion 411(b) the re fo re cannot be abas i s on which to vaca te the Cour t ' s orde r .

The analogous f a c t s and i d e n t i c a l holding in th e r ecen tdec is ion Bean v . Houghton Miff l in Harcourt Publ i sh ing Co. , CV10

(2) In any case in which inaccurate informat ion descr ibed under paragraph (1 )i s a l leged , the cour t s h a l l r eques t the Regis te r of Copyrights to advise thecour t whether the inaccura te informat ion , i f known, would have caused theRegis ter of copyr ights to refuse r e g i s t r a t i o n .

4

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 4 of 8

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

5/8

8034-PCT-DCG 1 2010 WL 3168624 (D. Ariz . Aug. 10 1 2010) 1 fu r the rr e in fo rces the Cour t / s reasoning. There, p l a i n t i f f so soughtre I f based on defendant ' s a l leged overuse of P l a i n t i f f / sphotographs under i t s l i cens ing agreement . Id . a t *1. Thep la in t i f f Bean a l so contrac ted with Corbis to l i cense th e useof h is 150 photographs and t r a n s fe r r e d ownership r i gh t s of thoseimages to Corbis th e purpose o f r e g i s t e r ing th e images withthe Copyright Office . Id . Corbis then reg is te red s ix

compilat ions , each o f which con ta ined some of p l a i n t i f f / sphotographs . Id . of the compilat ion r eg i s t r a t i ons n e i t h e rmention pI n t i f f as an author nor include t i t l e s of h isimages. Id .

The Bean cour t he ld t ha t sec t ion 411(b) d id not savep l a i n t i f f / s in tended r e g i s t r a t i on . Id . a t *3. The cour treasoned t ha t " 411 i s in tended to save otherwise va l idr e g i s t r a t i ons t ha t conta in unin tent ional ly inaccura tein fo rmat ion ." Id . That sec t ion , however 1 cannot be read to"save the thousands of a t tempted r e g i s t r a t i ons . [ tha t ]fa i l ed to comply with the requirements o f 409 almostcompletely.1I Id . The cour t went on to conclude that" pla inlanguage of 411 app l ies to inaccurac ies in otherwise va l idapp l ica t ions , not to complete omiss ions informat ion necessaryto determine what work was being copyr ighted ." Id . a t *4.

5

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 5 of 8

http:///reader/full/completely.1Ihttp:///reader/full/completely.1I

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

6/8

Pla in t i f f in the present case so argues tha t sec t ion411(b) i s somehow broader than the "innocent e r ro r ru le . " (SeePl. Reply Mem. a t 3) . Pla in t i f f claims t ha t while the "innocente r ro r ru le" opera tes in a l imi way to " ' save a copyrightreg is t ra t ion tha t suf fe rs from some t echnica l defec t such as amisspell ing or acc identa l omission of informat ion, ' " rd .(quoting Muench, 2010 WL 1838874 a t *9), sec t ion 411(b)"contains no such l imi ta t ion on the type of de t tha t can becured." See P l. Reply Mem. a t 3.) P la in t i f f ' s argument t ha tthe " innocent e r ro r ru le" only saves technica l s whilesec t ion 411(b) saves any omission or inaccuracy, See Pl. ReplyMem. a t 3), i s unpersuasive, especia l ly in l i gh t of a sta tementin Pl i f f l s Opposit ion Memorandum to the Motion to Dismiss,wherein Pla in t i f f concedes tha t the two are essen t i a l ly thesame. (Pl . Oppln Mem. a t 14) (the "[ innocent e r ro r rule] wasrecent ly codif ied in an October 2008 amendment to sec t ion 411 ofthe Copyright Act . . ") . r n any event , Court need notdec whether sec t ion 411(b) i s broader than the "innocenter ror rule" because, as discussed above, P la in t i f f ' s argument

Is under e i the r s tandard. The "inaccurate information" tha tn t i f f contends should be saved by sec t ion 411(b) i s much

more than inaccura te ; it i s a lack of information. Cf.Morris v. Bus. Concepts, Inc . , 259 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir . 2001).

2. ::..cM___---,,---,--a_t_e_m__e_n-'..t-,--,-s---,o_f_R_e_l_e_v_a_n_t_ _C_a___e-'..l---,a--,-w6

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 6 of 8

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

7/8

At some l ength , Pla in t i f f argues t ha t t h i s Court er red , inthe Opin ion ' s dic ta , in analyzing case law and r egu la to rymater ia l dea l ing with the r eg i s t r a t i on of c o l l e c t i ve works. (SeePl. Mot. to Reconsider a t 15-18) . However, P l a i n t i f f c i t e s tono new dec i s ions t h a t would change the Cour t ' s r a t i ona l e . Inshor t , P l a i n t i f f ' s argument bo i l s down to nothing more than adisagreement with the Cour t ' s ana lys i s and i s thus notappropr ia te for cons idera t ion on a motion to r econs ider . See

U.S.A. Cer t i ed Merchs. , L.L.C. v. Koebel, 27 3 F. Supp. 2d 501,50 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("[A] motion fo r r econs idera t ion i s no tdesigned to accord an oppor tuni ty fo r the moving par ty , unhappywith th e r e su l t s , to take i s sue with th e Cour t ' s reso lu t ion ofmat te rs considered in connect ion with the or ig ina l motion.") .

3. Supplemental Regis t r a t ionsP l a i n t i f f also asks th e Court to vaca te i t s order on th e

grounds t ha t P l a i n t i f f has now received a cor rec t ivesupplemental r eg i s t r a t i on c e r t i f i c a t e from th e Copyright Officet h a t has mooted the r eg i s t r a t i on i s sue complete ly . (See P l. Mot.to Reconsider a t 19) . Pla in t i f f argues t h a t s ince the da te onthe "supplemental reg is t ra t ion" i s th e same as t ha t on theor ig ina l compi la t ion r e g i s t r a t i on , under Rule 60(b) (2) o f theFedera l Rules o f Civ i l Procedure, the supplemental r eg i s t r a t i once r t i f i ca t e s amount to "newly discovered evidence" becausePla in t i f f "could not reasonably have discovered the necess i ty

7

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 7 of 8

7/29/2019 67.0 Order on Motion for Reconsideration

8/8

securing them p r i o r to the Cour t ' s ru l ing . " See P l. Mot. toReconsider a t 19-20) . This argument warrants little d iscuss ionas i f f could have eas i ly r e g i s t e r e d th e works i nd iv idua l lyor as a compi ion in i t s own name in th e f i r s t in s tance . Andin , P l a i n t i f f has done exac t ly tha t in the pa s t . Muench,2010 WL 1838874, a t *10 n .3 . Further , t h i s evidence was notnewly discovered but i s ra the r , a newly discovered l ega l

ty f ic to meet th e requirements o f e i t h e r Rule

60(b) (2 ) o r 60(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civ i l Procedure.ed. See e . Madonna v. United Sta tes , 878 F.2d 62, 64 (2dCir . 1989) (ac t ion under Rule 60(b) (2) i s proper ly based on newevidence of f raud o r mistake discovered a f t e r t r i a l ) .CONCLUSION

P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r recons idera t ion and rehear ing i sGRANTED in pa r t and DENIED pa r t . The conc lus ions of theOpinion remain undis tu rbed . par t i e s s ha l l confe r and informthe Court how they propose to proceed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New Yorks e p t e m b e r ~ , 2010 ~ C l ~ORETTA A. PRESKA,

CHIEF U.S.D.J .

8

Case 1:09-cv-02669-LAP Document 67 Filed 09/27/10 Page 8 of 8