1. Harrington v. Dugar
No. 2:22-cv-08230 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024)
Facts
Professional photographer Blaine Harrington III created and registered a photograph of the Albuquerque skyline.
Plastic surgeon Dr. Deepak Dugar displayed the photograph on his website without permission for approximately two years.
The estate of Harrington sued after Harrington passed away.
The case proceeded all the way through a jury trial.
Jury Verdict
The jury awarded:
- $10,000 statutory damages
- for infringement of one photograph
Not an enormous damages award.
What made the case significant?
After winning at trial, plaintiff requested attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. §505.
The court found:
- defendant asserted numerous weak defenses
- defendant maintained objectively unreasonable positions
- several defenses were abandoned immediately before trial
- plaintiff had to fully litigate the case because of defendant's litigation strategy.
The court therefore awarded:
$193,032.50 in attorney fees
on top of the $10,000 verdict.
Takeaway
This case is frequently cited because:
A relatively small infringement can become extremely expensive if the defendant forces unnecessary litigation.
It reinforces the deterrent purpose of §505.
2. Corson v. Brown Harris Stevens of the Hamptons
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248214 (S.D.N.Y.)
Facts
Photographer Michael Corson sued a luxury real estate brokerage after it used one of his copyrighted photographs without authorization.
The case was tried before the judge (bench trial).
Damages
The court found:
- actual damages were essentially negligible
- infringement nevertheless occurred
- infringement was willful enough to justify enhanced statutory damages
The court awarded:
$25,000 statutory damages
for one photograph.
Why important?
The court relied on Supreme Court authority emphasizing that statutory damages are designed to:
- compensate creators
- deter infringement
- discourage copyright violations
The court specifically noted statutory damages need not correspond to actual financial loss.
Lesson
Willful infringement can justify substantial statutory damages even when:
- no licensing loss can be proven
- plaintiff's actual damages are small.
3. Hargis v. Pacifica Senior Living Management
No. 2:22-cv-06989 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2024)
This is arguably one of the most significant photographer copyright verdicts ever.
Facts
Architectural photographer Scott Hargis photographed senior living facilities for another company (Atria).
Pacifica later acquired some facilities.
Instead of obtaining new licenses, Pacifica simply continued using Hargis' copyrighted photographs on its websites.
There were:
- 43 photographs
- jury found infringement of 42
- jury found willfulness for all 42.
Jury Verdict
Maximum statutory damages:
$150,000
for each work.
42 photographs × $150,000
=
$6,300,000
The court entered judgment for the full amount.
Why did the jury award the maximum?
Evidence suggested Pacifica:
- continued using photographs after receiving notice
- failed to obtain licenses
- continued infringement after being warned
- was considered sophisticated
- acted willfully.
Why is this case important?
It demonstrates that juries are willing to award:
maximum statutory damages
where infringement appears deliberate.
This has become one of the largest reported photography statutory damage verdicts in the United States.
4. Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex/Zara) v. Thilikó, LLC
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134183 (S.D.N.Y.)
Facts
The plaintiffs (owner of Zara and related fashion brands) alleged defendants copied numerous copyrighted fashion photographs.
The defendants defaulted or otherwise failed to successfully defend.
Judgment
Court awarded:
$450,000
representing:
$30,000
for each of
15 copyrighted photographs.
No finding of maximum willful damages was necessary.
The court concluded the award appropriately compensated plaintiff and deterred infringement.
Significance
Shows courts often treat:
each photograph
as a separate copyrighted work.
Therefore damages can multiply quickly.
15 photos became
$450,000.
Comparing the Cases
| Case | Photos | Damages | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Harrington |
1 |
$10,000 verdict + $193,032 fees |
Attorney fees may dwarf damages |
|
Corson |
1 |
$25,000 |
Willfulness justifies enhanced statutory damages |
|
Hargis |
42 |
$6.3 million |
Maximum statutory damages for willful infringement |
|
Textil (Inditex) |
15 |
$450,000 |
Separate damages for each copyrighted image |
Practical Lessons for Copyright Litigators
These cases collectively reinforce several recurring principles:
- Each photograph is generally treated as a separate copyrighted work, allowing damages to accumulate rapidly.
- Willfulness matters. Evidence that a defendant ignored notices, continued using images after being warned, or acted recklessly can substantially increase statutory damages.
- Attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 can eclipse the damages award. As Harrington illustrates, a $10,000 statutory damages verdict ultimately resulted in nearly $200,000 in fee liability because of the way the case was litigated.
- Actual damages are not required for meaningful recovery. Courts may award substantial statutory damages even when the copyright owner cannot prove significant economic loss, particularly where deterrence is warranted.
- Sophisticated commercial defendants are often held to a higher standard. Businesses that regularly use marketing materials, website content, or professional photography are expected to have licensing procedures in place.
For lawyers defending copyright claims, these cases underscore the value of conducting an early risk assessment and exploring settlement where liability is reasonably clear. For photographers and copyright owners, they demonstrate that federal courts remain willing to impose significant statutory damages—and, in appropriate cases, attorney's fees—to deter unauthorized commercial use of copyrighted photographs.
