MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tetra Images, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its initial Complaint on June 4, 2019 (Doc. 1), its First Amended Complaint on September 17, 2019 (Doc. 9), and — with Judge Román’s leave — its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the operative pleading in this action, on September 19, 2019 (Doc. 16, “SAC”).1 Plaintiff brings one claim under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., against Grahall Partners, LLC (“GP”), and Grahall Consulting Partners, LLC (“GCP,” and collectively, “Defendants”) for unauthorized use of a photograph (“Work”). (See generally SAC). Plaintiff served GCP’s authorized agent with a copy of the Summons and SAC on October 23, 2019 (Doc. 20) and almost six months later, on April 10, 2020, secured a Certificate of Default as to GCP (Doc. 25). On July 21, 2020, in addition to filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to GP only (Doc. 26), Plaintiff moved for a default judgment, damages, a permanent injunction, costs, and attorneys’ fees against GCP by way of an order to show cause, in accordance with this Court’s Individual Practices. (See Doc. 27 (Proposed Order to Show Cause); Doc. 28 (“Supporting Decl.”); Doc. 29 (“Saunders Decl. 1″); Doc. 30 (“Dunne Decl. 1″); Doc. 31 (“Pl. Br.”); Doc. 33 (Proposed Default Judgment)). The Court “So Ordered” the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 22, 2020, thereby terminating GP as a party herein. (Doc. 34). The next day, July 23, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing GCP to explain by August 14, 2020 “why an order should not be issued…in support of Plaintiff’s application for the entry of a default judgment….” (Doc. 35). Plaintiff served the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers on July 24, 2020. (Doc. 36). Approximately eight months later, on March 30, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to supplement the documents supporting its motion for default judgment. (Doc. 37). Specifically, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend “the Saunders Declaration and append to it — in admissible, nonhearsay form — documentary evidence supporting the contention that the Work’s Fair Market Value is…$2,500, as well as evidence, if any, supporting a scarcity factor,” and “the Dunne Declaration to indicate whether and how individuals who worked on the case kept contemporaneous time records….” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff filed and served the supplemental declarations on April 15, 2021. (Doc. 39, “Dunne Decl. 2;” Doc. 40 “Saunders Decl. 2;” Doc. 41; Doc. 42). As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, GCP has neither appeared nor responded to any filing in this action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that it created the Work, reproduced below, in 2007: (SAC 12). Plaintiff registered the Work with the United States Register of Copyrights under Registration Number VA 2-082-974. (Id. 13; see also SAC Ex. 1). The registration was effective as of November 29, 2017. (SAC Ex. 1). Despite the fact that Defendants never secured a license to use the Work, Plaintiff identified Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Work on a website as early as December 6, 2016. (SAC Ex. 3 at 2; see also SAC Ex. 2 (screenshots dated April 18, 2017)). On or about January 8, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to GP notifying the company of its infringing activity. (SAC Ex. 3 at 2-9).2 Counsel demanded certain information from GP to calculate a demand for GP’s unauthorized use of the Work and advised that GP provide the letter and its attachments “to [its] attorney and insurance carriers.” (Id. at 5). Counsel noted that, “[i]f we do not receive a response from you or a representative by January 22, 2019, we will take further steps to protect our client’s rights.” (Id.). Approximately one month after the ultimatum deadline, on or about February 19, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel again wrote to GP. (Id. at 10). Stating that they had received no response to their January 8, 2019 letter, counsel advised further: [A] review of the accused infringing webpage shows that the infringement has been removed. However, this does not dispose of our client’s claim. It is imperative that you respond to us. If we do not hear back from you, we will be forced to take further steps to protect our client’s rights including by filing a lawsuit against you. We also repeat our demand that you tender this claim to your insurance carrier. (Id.). Plaintiff received no response and initiated the extant action. (SAC 23). STANDARD OF REVIEW “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff’s counsel complied with Rule 55(a) and Local Civil Rule 55.1, and the Clerk of Court accordingly issued a Certificate of Default against GCP. (Doc. 25). Given GCP’s abandonment of its defense of this case and resulting default, the Court accepts the well-pled factual allegations in the SAC as true and draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor. See Vera v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., 946 F.3d 120, 135 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009); Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981). However, the “district court has discretion under Rule 55(b)(2) once a default is determined to require proof of necessary facts and need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action.” Au Bon Pain Corp., 653 F.2d at 65. In a similar fashion, the Court does not accept blindly the allegations concerning damages. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974)). While an evidentiary hearing under Rule 55(b)(2) is not required, a plaintiff must establish through affidavits or other evidence “a basis for the damages specified in the default judgment.” Transatl. Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). ANALYSIS I. Infringement Liability Plaintiff’s only claim for relief is for violation of the Copyright Act. “In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must show: (i) ownership of a valid copyright; and (ii) unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work.” Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39, 48 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Recs., 351 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff meets these elements here. As to the first element, Plaintiff alleged that it registered the Work with the United States Register of Copyrights and attached a copy of the Certificate of Registration to the SAC. (SAC
25-26; SAC Ex. 1; see also Saunders Decl. 1 7 (explaining that Plaintiff “owns all rights, title, and interest, including the copyright, in and to the Work”); Saunders Decl. 2 (same)). As regards the second element, Plaintiff alleged that it never granted GCP a license to use the Work but GCP used the Work on its website to promote its business (See SAC
