Judge Thomas Griesa
Stock photography agency Palmer Kane licensed educational publisher Scholastic’s limited use of copyrighted photographs. Palmer Kane alleged copyright violation by Scholastic’s use of photographs, absent permission or beyond the scope of any licensing agreement, in certain publications as part of a broader pattern of infringing third-party photographic content. Although it did not need to attach copies of registration certificates or provide registration numbers for all the copyrights at issue, the court dismissed Palmer Kane’s complaint, which did not properly specify the works at issue. As in Plunket v. Doyle, Palmer Kane provided a list of works, but indicated that the list was not exhaustive. Nor did Palmer Kane’s complaint properly allege by what acts Scholastic infringed its rights. Although Palmer Kane’s complaint did not need to specify which copyright was infringed by which act, it needed to contain some factual allegations to narrow the infringing acts beyond broad, conclusory statements of infringement. The court observed that perhaps the most significant deficiency in Palmer Kane’s complaint was the lack of specificity regarding a time frame during which Scholastic infringed on its works.
