8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
1/13
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X J OSEPH FRYE,
Pl ai nt i f f ,
- agai nst -
BENJ AMI N F. LAGERSTROM, a. k. aBENJ AMI N I RI SH, and DI ANACOLLV, I NC. ,
Def endant s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15 Ci v. 5348 ( NRB)
I n t hi s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and br each of cont r act
act i on, pl ai nt i f f J oseph Fr ye al l eges t hat def endant s wr ongf ul l y
i ncor por at ed f oot age f r om hi s shor t f i l m i nt o vi deos t hat t hey
publ i shed on t he I nt er net . Def endant Benj ami n Lager st r om,
pr oceedi ng pr o se, moves t o di smi ss t he compl ai nt pur suant t o
Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) and f or sanct i ons
agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f and hi s at t or ney under Rul e 11. For t he
f ol l owi ng r easons, t he mot i on i s deni ed.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Compl ai nt , ECF No. 1 ( “Compl . ”) , al l eges t he
f ol l owi ng f act s. Pl ai nt i f f J oseph Fr ye wr i t es screenpl ays and
pr oduces, di r ect s, and edi t s vi deos and f i l ms, somet i mes usi ng
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
2/13
2
t he al i as “Li t t l e Li on, Ti ny Ti ger . ” Compl . ¶¶ 5–6. The
i ndi vi dual def endant Benj ami n F. Lager st r om ( t he “def endant ”)
owns and oper at es t he cor por at e def endant Di anacol l v, I nc.
( “Di anacol l v”) , a New Yor k cor por at i on. I d. ¶ 10.
I n Sept ember of 2014, Fr ye and Lager st r om r eached an
agr eement t o pr oduce a 13- page scr i pt ent i t l ed “Homel ess: A Love
St or y, ” whi ch Frye had wr i t t en and r egi st er ed wi t h t he Wr i t er s
Gui l d of Amer i ca, i nt o a shor t f i l m of t he same name. I d. ¶¶
22, 36, 40. On September 12, 2014, t he par t i es execut ed a “Cr ew
Agr eement ” under whi ch Di anacol l v woul d pr ovi de vi deo pr oduct i on
ser vi ces i n t he f or m of equi pment , cast , and crew. I d. ¶ 24,
40; see i d. Ex. B ( “Cr ew Agr eement ”) . 1 I n exchange, pl ai nt i f f
woul d pr ovi de, i nt er al i a, meal s, a makeup ar t i st , and
par t i ci pat i on cr edi t t o t he cr ew, and pr ovi de a DVD of t he
compl eted mot i on pi ct ur e wi t hi n 60 days. Cr ew Agr eement at 1.
The product i on wor k was t o be done “on specul at i on, ” meani ng
t hat def endant s woul d not be pai d but were worki ng “under t he
i dea t hat f ut ur e pai d wor k wi l l r esul t f r om t he hel p i n
pr omot i on of t he pr oj ect t hat comes wi t h sampl e/ demonst r at i on
pr oduct i on, ot her wi se known as a ‘ pi l ot [ . ] ’ ” I d. The Cr ew
Agr eement f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat “al l f oot age and mat er i al bei ng
par t of t hi s agr eement i s t he pr oper t y of t he Pr oducer ” and t hat
1 Al t hough t he Compl ai nt al l eges t he Cr ew Agreement was execut ed onSeptember 12, 2014, t he si gnat ures appear t o be dat ed Sept ember 18. Cr ewAgr eement at 2. Thi s di scr epancy i s i mmater i al .
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
3/13
3
Di anacol l v “wi l l not di st r i but e or di spl ay such f oot age i n any
way ot her t han as an exampl e/ demonst r at i on of t he company’ s
wor k. ” I d. Pl ai nt i f f si gned t he agr eement as t he “Producer , ”2
and Lager st r om si gned i t as t he “Cr ew Chi ef . ” Compl . ¶ 27; Cr ew
Agr eement at 2. Dur i ng negot i at i ons, pl ai nt i f f al so agr eed t o
gi ve Lager st r om cr edi t s as “Di r ect or of Phot ogr aphy” and
“Execut i ve Pr oducer ” of t he f i l m. Compl . ¶ 23.
Pr i nci pal shoot i ng of “Homel ess” commenced and was
compl eted i n Sept ember of 2014. I d. ¶¶ 41–42. I n Oct ober of
2014, as Fr ye was edi t i ng the f oot age t o pr oduce a 12–15 mi nut e
shor t f i l m, t he r el at i onshi p bet ween Frye and Lager st r om
det er i orat ed af t er t he two di sagr eed about how t o best pr omote
t he compl et ed f i l m. See i d. ¶¶ 42–46.
On Oct ober 12, 2014, def endant Lagerst r om, under t he al i as
“J er r y Sei nf el d, ” publ i shed a vi deo ent i t l ed “Pi l ot f or LL/ TT
Showt i me Net works” on t he websi t e YouTube. I d. ¶ 49. The
appr oxi mat el y si x mi nut e vi deo was composed ent i r el y of f oot age
f r om t he “Homel ess” shoot , i ncl udi ng an “i mpor t ant par t ” of t he
compl et ed f i l m t hat Lager st r om had edi t ed di f f er ent l y. I d. ¶¶
49, 51, 52. I n t hi s vi deo, Lager st r om l abel ed hi msel f as
“Di r ect or . ” I d. ¶ 50. Pl ai nt i f f di scover ed t he vi deo and, by
emai l dat ed November 14, 2015, i nsi st ed Lager st r om r emove i t .
2 El sewher e, t he Cr ew Agr eement i dent i f i es t he “Producer ” as “Li t t l eLi on- Ti ny Ti ger . ” Cr ew Agr eement at 1.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
4/13
4
I d. ¶ 52. Lager st r om r ef used, r espondi ng wi t h a l et t er st yl ed
“Or der ” t o pl ai nt i f f and st af f at Showt i me Net wor ks I nc. ,
accusi ng pl ai nt i f f of f al sel y repr esent i ng t hat Showt i me was
i nt er est ed i n the “Homel ess” pr oj ect , 3 accusi ng pl ai nt i f f of
cer t ai n “cri mi nal act i vi t y, ” and asser t i ng def endant s’ r i ght t o
use t he f oot age. I d. ¶ 53; see i d. Ex. G. Def endant sent
addi t i onal l et t er s and emai l s t o Showt i me st af f l evel i ng si mi l ar
accusat i ons. I d. ¶ 54.
Meanwhi l e, i n December of 2014, havi ng compl et ed hi s
edi t i ng of “Homel ess, ” pl ai nt i f f appl i ed f or copyr i ght
r egi st r at i on. He r ecei ved cer t i f i cat es of r egi st r at i on f or the
t ext of “Homel ess” ( ef f ect i ve December 26, 2014) and f or t he
mot i on pi ct ur e ( ef f ect i ve J anuar y 20, 2015) . I d. ¶ 15; see i d.
Ex. A.
Bet ween Apr i l and J une of 2015, def endant publ i shed thr ee
addi t i onal vi deos on t he websi t es Vi meo and YouTube. I d. ¶¶ 60–
62. These vi deos - - ent i t l ed “Mar gar i t a’ s Mi l l i ons, ” “J ack, La
Hi st or i a de J ack Veneno, ” and “La Hi st or i a de J ack Veneno.
Document al de Benj ami n I r i sh con Ri c Fl ai r y Rel ampago
Her nandez” - - each i ncor por at ed f oot age f r om “Homel ess” t o
3 Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat , at t he t i me, he was empl oyed by Showt i meNet wor ks as an associ at e pr oducer f or I nt er act i ve Tel evi si on. Compl . ¶ 7.I n Sept ember of 2014, he i nf ormed Showt i me about t he product i on of “Homel ess”t o f ul f i l l a “r i ght of f i rst refusal ” obl i gat i on t hat was a condi t i on of hi sempl oyment , and he t ol d def endant s about t hi s requi r ement . I d. ¶¶ 32–33.However , pl ai nt i f f di d not wr i t e, pr oduce, or di r ect “Homel ess” as par t ofany agr eement wi t h Showt i me. I d. ¶ 34.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
5/13
5
cr eat e a pol emi c about t he ent er t ai nment i ndust r y. I d. The
vi deos accused pl ai nt i f f of conspi r i ng wi t h Showt i me i n or der t o
har m Lager st r om. I d.
On J une 22, 2015, pl ai nt i f f , t hr ough counsel , sent
def endant a cease and desi st l et t er . I d. ¶ 63. Def endant
r esponded by wr i t i ng: “Your cl i ent i s goi ng t o j ai l . . . . gi ve me
a br eak. ” I d. ¶ 64. On J une 28, 2015, def endant publ i shed a
vi deo on YouTube ent i t l ed “Mar gar i t a’ s Mi l l i ons Teaser ” t hat
used f oot age f r om “Homel ess” t o create another pol emi c about t he
ent er t ai nment i ndust r y and accuse pl ai nt i f f and Showt i me of
mi sconduct . I d. ¶ 68. Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed copyr i ght not i ces t o
YouTube and Vemeo, i d. ¶¶ 65, 67, 70, some of whi ch Lager st r om
opposed, i d. ¶ 69. As of t he f i l i ng of t he Compl ai nt , some of
t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng vi deos r emai ned avai l abl e on YouTube.
I d. ¶ 73.
B. Procedural History
On J ul y 10, 2015, pl ai nt i f f f i l ed hi s Compl ai nt i n t hi s
Cour t , al l egi ng ( 1) copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and ( 2) br each of
cont r act . 4 Def endant Lager st r om, pr oceedi ng pr o se, f i l ed f our
separate responses t o t he compl ai nt : a “memorandum of l aw i n
suppor t of mot i on t o di smi ss, ” an “answer , af f i r mat i ve def enses,
4 Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Compl ai nt al so cont ai ns “causes of acti on” f or (3)“i nj unct i on” under 17 U. S. C. § 502, ( 4) “st at ut ory damages” under 17 U. S. C. §504, and ( 5) “sei zure and i mpoundi ng” under 17 U. S. C. § 503. These cl ai msar e not st and- al one causes of act i on but r equest s f or r el i ef under t heCopyri ght Act . We t her ef or e r egar d t hem as par t of t he copyri ghti nf r i ngement cl ai m advanced i n Count One.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
6/13
6
and count er cl ai ms, ” a “mot i on and/ or pet i t i on f or decl ar at or y
j udgment , ” and “proposed amended answer s, def enses, and
count er cl ai ms. ” Separ at el y, he made r equest s f or sanct i ons and
t o submi t addi t i onal evi dence. By l et t er dat ed Sept ember 24,
2015, we st r uck def endant ’ s r esponses t o t he compl ai nt and
gr ant ed hi m l eave t o f i l e a r evi sed, si ngl e document t o ser ve as
hi s oper at i ve mot i on or pl eadi ng at t hi s st age of t he
l i t i gat i on. ECF No. 43. Def endant ’ s “Oper at i ve Mot i on t o
Di smi ss t he Compl ai nt and Request f or Sanct i ons” and associ ated
memorandum, ECF No. 45 ( “Mem. ”) , f i l ed Oct ober 2, 2015, i s t hat
mot i on, whi ch we addr ess her e. Pl ai nt i f f r esponded by
memor andum dat ed November 5, 2015, ECF No. 48 ( “Opp’ n”) , and
def endant r epl i ed on December 3, 2015, ECF No. 52 ( “Repl y”) .
Fi nal l y, despi t e our war ni ngs t o Mr . Lager st r om t hat he coul d
not r epr esent a cor por at i on i n cour t , t he cor por at e def endant
Di anacol l v r emai ns unr epr esent ed and has def aul t ed. 5 ECF No. 50.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
On a mot i on t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , t he Cour t must accept as t r ue al l f act ual
al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt and dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences
5 On December 18, 2015, we deni ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s mot i on f or a f i nal def aul t j udgment agai nst Di anacol l v wi t hout prej udi ce t o i t s r enewal , gi ven t hependi ng cl ai ms agai nst Mr . Lagerst r om. ECF No. 60.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
7/13
7
i n t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s f avor . ATSI Commc’ ns, I nc. v. Shaar Fund,
Lt d. , 493 F. 3d 87, 98 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) . However , “[ t ] hr eadbar e
r eci t al s of a cause of act i on' s el ement s, suppor t ed by mer e
concl usor y st at ement s . . . ar e not ent i t l ed t o t he assumpt i on
of t r ut h. ” Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678–79 ( 2009) . I n
or der t o wi t hst and a chal l enge under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) , a pl ai nt i f f
must al l ege “enough f act s t o st at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef t hat i s
pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. ” Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S.
544, 510 ( 2007) . I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he Cour t may
consi der exhi bi t s t o the compl ai nt and document s i ncorporated by
r ef er ence i nt o t he compl ai nt . Wei nst ei n Co. v. Smokewood Ent m’ t
Gr p. , LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2d 332, 338 ( S. D. N. Y. 2009) .
Def endant Lager st r om i s pr oceedi ng pr o se. “I t i s wel l
est abl i shed t hat t he submi ssi ons of a pr o se l i t i gant must be
const r ued l i ber al l y and i nt er pr et ed t o r ai se t he st r ongest
argument s t hat t hey suggest . ” Tr i est man v. Fed. Bur eau of
Pr i sons, 470 F. 3d 471, 474 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
marks omi t t ed; emphasi s removed) . Yet “pr o se st at us ‘ does not
exempt a par t y f r om compl i ance wi t h r el evant r ul es of pr ocedur al
and subst ant i ve l aw. ’ ” Boddi e v. New Yor k St at e Di v. of Par ol e,
285 F. Supp. 2d 421, 426 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) ( quot i ng Tragut h v.
Zuck, 710 F. 2d 90, 95 ( 2d Ci r . 1983) ) .
B. Analysis
1. Copyright Infringement
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
8/13
8
Copyr i ght owner s possess t he excl usi ve r i ght s t o r epr oduce,
per f or m publ i cl y, di spl ay publ i cl y, pr epar e der i vat i ve wor ks of ,
and di st r i but e copi es of t hei r copyr i ght ed wor ks. 17 U. S. C. §
106; see Ar i st a Recor ds, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F. 3d 110, 117 ( 2d
Ci r . 2010) . To est abl i sh a cl ai m of copyr i ght i nf r i ngement ,
“‘ t wo el ement s must be pr oven: ( 1) owner shi p of a val i d
copyr i ght , and ( 2) copyi ng of const i t uent el ement s of t he wor k
t hat are or i gi nal . ’ ” Ar i st a Recor ds, 604 F. 3d at 117 ( quot i ng
Fei st Publ ’ ns, I nc. v. Rur al Tel . Ser v. Co. , 499 U. S. 340, 361
( 1991) ) . The pr esent at i on of a cer t i f i cat e of copyr i ght
r egi st r at i on pr ovi des pr i ma f aci e evi dence of bot h t he val i di t y
of t he copyr i ght , 17 U. S. C. § 410( c) , and t he or i gi nal i t y of t he
wor k, Boi sson v. Bani an, Lt d, 273 F. 3d 262, 268 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) .
The copyi ng of or i gi nal el ements of t he wor k can be est abl i shed
t hr ough ei t her di r ect or i ndi r ect evi dence. Boi sson, 273 F. 3d
at 267.
Her e, pl ai nt i f f adequat el y al l eges copyr i ght i nf r i ngement .
As exhi bi t s t o t he Compl ai nt , he submi t s copyr i ght r egi st r at i on
cer t i f i cat es f or t he text and mot i on pi ct ur e of “Homel ess, ”
ent i t l i ng hi m t o a pr esumpt i on of a val i d copyr i ght f or an
or i gi nal wor k. Compl . Ex. A, at 1–4. He f ur t her al l eges t hat
def endant i ncor por at ed vi deo shot i n connect i on wi t h t he pr oj ect
i nt o f i ve vi deos t hat def endant publ i shed on t he I nt er net . He
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
9/13
9
pr ovi des t he t i t l es, dat es of publ i cat i on, and I nt er net
addr esses of t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng vi deos.
Lager st r om does not di sput e t hat he cr eat ed and publ i shed
t he vi deos, composed at l east i n par t of f oot age f r om t he
f i l mi ng of “Homel ess, ” obvi at i ng any quest i on t hat or i gi nal
mat er i al was act ual l y copi ed. I nst ead, he cont ends t hat hi s
conduct di d not const i t ut e copyr i ght i nf r i ngement because ( 1)
t he Cr ew Agr eement cont ai ns a t r ansf er or assi gnment of t he
r i ght t o use t he f oot age, Repl y 3–5; 6 ( 2) pl ai nt i f f ’ s copyr i ght s
ar e “f r audul ent ” because the wor k was “pl agi ar i zed, ” Repl y 3, 6;
and ( 3) hi s uses of t he f oot age ar e pr ot ect ed by the Fi r st
Amendment , Repl y 4, 10, 14.
None of t hese ar gument s i s advanced wi t h a suf f i ci ent
f act ual or l egal basi s t o be pl ausi bl e. Even i f t hey wer e, such
af f i r mat i ve def enses woul d r el y on f act s out si de the compl ai nt
and t her ef or e woul d not be appr opr i at e t o addr ess i n t hi s
cont ext . See Capi t ol Recor ds, I nc. v. MP3t unes, LLC, No. 07
Ci v. 9931( WHP) , 2009 WL 3364036, at *3 ( S. D. N. Y. Oct . 16, 2009)
( “Whi l e a compl ai nt can be di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a
cl ai m pur suant t o a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on r ai si ng an af f i r mat i ve
6 As noted, t he Cr ew Agr eement st at es j ust t he opposi t e, t hat “al lf oot age and mat eri al bei ng part of t hi s agr eement i s t he pr oper t y of t hePr oducer ” and t hat def endant s “wi l l not di st r i but e or di spl ay such f oot age i nany way ot her t han as an exampl e/ demonst r at i on” of t hei r work. Cr ewAgreement at 1. We t ake def endant ’ s ar gument t o be t hat hi s vi deos ar emer el y “demonst r at i ons” of hi s wor k. Pl ai nt i f f has adequat el y al l eged,however , t hat gi ven t he cust om and pr act i ce i n t he mot i on pi ct ur e i ndust r y,none of def endant s’ vi deos i s cor r ect l y vi ewed as an “exampl e/ demonst r at i on”i n t he sense of a “t easer , t r ai l er or r eel sampl e. ” Compl . ¶¶ 26, 51.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
10/13
10
def ense i f t he def ense appear s on t he f ace of t he compl ai nt , t he
compl ai nt i t sel f must est abl i sh t he f act s necessar y to sust ai n
def endant ’ s def ense. ” ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, br acket s, and
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Kel l y–Br own v. Wi nf r ey, 717 F. 3d
295, 308 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) ( “Af f i r mat i ve def enses” t hat “r equi r e[ ]
consi der at i on of f act s out si de t he compl ai nt ” ar e “i nappr opr i at e
t o r esol ve on a mot i on t o di smi ss. ”) .
2. Breach of Contract
Pl ai nt i f f al so adequat el y al l eges br each of cont r act . The
el ement s of a cause of act i on f or br each of cont r act under New
Yor k l aw7 ar e: ( 1) t he exi st ence of a cont r act ; ( 2) per f or mance
of t he cont r act by one par t y; ( 3) br each by the ot her part y; and
( 4) damages suf f er ed as a r esul t of t he br each. Fi r st I nvest or s
Cor p. v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 152 F. 3d 162, 168 ( 2d Ci r .
1998) . Her e, pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t he Cr ew Agr eement const i t ut ed a
bi ndi ng cont r act ; t hat pl ai nt i f f had f ul l y per f or med t he
cont r act t hr ough Oct ober of 2014; t hat def endant br eached the
cont r act , bot h by hi s unaut hor i zed use of t he f oot age and by
f al sel y cl ai mi ng t hat he was t he Di r ect or of t he pr oj ect ; and
t hat pl ai nt i f f was damaged because hi s own pl ans f or pr omot i ng
and rel easi ng “Homel ess” wer e f r ust r at ed.
7 The par t i es f ai l t o addr ess what l aw gover ns t hei r cont r act . Based ont he Compl ai nt and t he br i ef i ng on t he mot i on t o di smi ss, i t appear s t hat Fr yeand Lagers t r om are r esi dent s of New Yor k, t hat t he Cr ew Agr eement wasnegot i at ed and execut ed i n New York, and t hat “Homel ess” was f i l med i n New
Yor k. Ther ef or e, we presume New Yor k l aw appl i es.
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
11/13
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
12/13
wronged by the
o t h e r s
conduct re l a t ing to the ed i t ing , re l ea se ,
and promotion of Homeless .
However, the Cour t s ro l e i s not
to
r ep a i r or
resolve t h i s re l a
t
1onship,
but
to eva lua te
ega
cla1ms
proper ly
advanced
under
the
Federal Rules.
We
urge
the
pa r t i e s
to
t hough t fu l ly consider
the mer i t s and value of t h i s
act1on,
given the1r crea t ive and f inanc ia l i n t e r e s t s ,
and
whether
a
se t t lement
of t h i s case would be more sens ib l e than
cont1nued l i t i g a t i o n . I f
the p a r t i e s
are both i n t e res t ed in
pursuing the
se t t lement route ,
the Court would r e f e r
t h i s
case
to a
Magis t ra te
Judge
to
a s s i s t :n
t ha t
endeavor.
I I I CONCLUSION
For the foregoing
reasons ,
Defendant Lagers t rom s mot1on to
dismiss
and h1s reques t
fo r sanc t ions a re
denied .
The p a r t i e s
should
inform
the Court with in t en
days
i f
they wish a
re fe r ra l
to a
Magis t ra te
Judge fo r
se t t lement .
This
Memorandum and Order
reso lves Docket Number
45.
SO ORDERED
Dated:
New York, New York
May 23, 2016
L ~ ~
OMI REICE
BUCHW LD
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
JUDGE
12
8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf
13/13
Copies of the foregoing Memorandum and Order have been mailed on
t h i s
da te
to
the fol lowing:
Attorney
for l a in t i f f
Danny
J imin ian
Esq.
Jim1n1an Law PLLC
65 Payson Avenue Su i t e
New York NY 10034
Defendant pro se
Benjamin F Lagers t rom
529 W 29th S t r ee t PHD
New York NY 10001
13