MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS Plaintiff Lindsay Grace Whiddon (“Whiddon”) brought a single copyright infringement claim against Defendant Buzzfeed Inc. (“Buzzfeed”) for its use of three of her photographs in a news article. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“Complaint”), asserting an affirmative defense of fair use. (Dkt. No. 20). On October 31, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. (Order, Dkt. No. 32). The next day, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant. (Dkt. No. 33). Two weeks later, Defendant moved for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 35). Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the court’s October 31, 2022 order (“Order”) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. No. 39). Plaintiff asks the court to “reconsider and vacate the Order dismissing the action, vacate the final Judgment, and grant [] leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.” (Reconsideration Mem. 6, Dkt. No. 40). For the following reasons, I deny with prejudice Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, to vacate the Order, to vacate the final judgment, and for leave to amend. BACKGROUND Familiarity with the facts of the case and of the court’s October 31, 2022 Opinion and Order, (Dkt. No. 32), is assumed, and the same defined terms are used herein. For convenience, the court recounts the most relevant allegations and procedural history below. In brief, Whiddon alleged that Buzzfeed violated her copyright by using her Photographs in a news article. (Id. at 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, asserting that its use of the Photographs was fair use. (Id. at 2). After Defendant filed its first motion to dismiss, Plaintiff amended her complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). (Id. at 6). Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”), asserting its affirmative defense of fair use. (Id. at 7). In her memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff indicated in her preliminary statement and in her conclusion, “[i]f the Motion is granted, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint.” (Pl. Opp. 8, 31, Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff did not identify the grounds for her request. She did not identify what new facts or legal theories she might assert if given the opportunity to replead. She did not attach a proposed amended complaint to her memorandum. On October 31, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Order, Dkt. No. 32). The court held that three of the four fair use factors supported the Defendant’s claim that its use of the Photographs was fair use. (Id. at 20). First, the court held that the use of the three photographs was transformative because the photographs were used for a news report on a social media controversy that arose around a friend of Whiddon’s. (Id. at 11). Second, the court held that the reproduction of the entirety of the photographs was reasonable for Defendant’s reporting on the social media controversy. (Id. at 18). Third, the court held that the Defendant’s use did not compete with the Plaintiff’s photographs in any traditional market. (Id.). While the court recognized that the photographs were creative, it afforded this factor less weight. (Id. at 17). As three of the four factors supported Defendant’s fair use argument, the court found that use of the photographs was fair use and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Id. at 20). The court’s memorandum did not address leave to amend. The next day, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant. (Dkt. No. 33). After the Clerk entered judgment in favor of the Defendant, the Defendant moved for attorney fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 35). Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), so she could have leave to amend her pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff seeks to add further allegations that “would cure any deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, and would lead to a different result under the four-factor fair use analysis.” (Reconsideration Mem. 8). Plaintiff proposes two changes to her original complaint that would allegedly fix its deficiencies. First, Plaintiff cites three more URLs of other media reports on the social media controversy, (Proposed Second Amended Compl. 66, Dkt. No. 40-1), and adds the allegation that, “Buzzfeed utilized more Photographs than were necessary and essential to tell the story as demonstrated by the fact that other publications used less Photographs than Buzzfeed to sufficiently communicate the story to its readers, or none at all[,]“, (Id. 71). She describes the use of photographs by other media outlets: “Forbes used only two of the four Photographs Buzzfeed used…. Insider used only two of the four Photographs Buzzfeed used…. The Guardian did not use any of the subject Photographs for its story…. BBC used only one of the subject Photographs…. Visor Down used only one of the subject Photographs…. SLR Lounge used none of the subject Photographs…. [the social media website] Reddit…does not use any photographs….” (Id.
