Vondran Legal® - Copyright Injunctions Explained
Citatation From Wareka vs. Excel Aesthetics, 23-cv-24652 case.
Permanent Injunction Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a permanent injunction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502.
The Copyright Act "permits the entry of an injunction to restrain" any violations of it. Betty's Best, Inc. v. Individuals, P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule ‘A', No. 1:23-CV-22322-KMW, 2023 WL 6171566, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2023) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 502, 35 U.S.C. § 283). See also Pac. & S. Co., Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1499, n. 17 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that the Copyright Act authorizes an injunction “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright”).
Injunctions are regularly issued pursuant to the mandate of § 502 because “the public interest is the interest in upholding copyright protections.”
Moreover, injunctive relief is available even in the default judgment setting because the defendants' failure to respond or otherwise appear makes it difficult for a plaintiff to prevent further infringement absent an injunction.” Animacord Ltd. v. Individuals, P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 21-CV-20744, 2022 WL 1109849, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Animaccord Ltd. v. Individuals, P'ships, or Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-20744-CIV, 2022 WL 1102865 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2022) (internal citation omitted).
“A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction . . . must demonstrate:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted;
and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156-57 (2010) (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L. C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006)). This four-part test “is regularly satisfied at the default-judgment stage in copyright-infringement cases.” Garden World Images Ltd. v. WilsonBrosGardens.com LLC., No. 1:19-CV-01035-AT, 2019 WL 8017802, at *7 (N.D.Ga. Oct. 31, 2019).
Plaintiff states that she "is likely to suffer irreparable harm as Plaintiff suffers diminished market value of her Photograph and loss of licensing fees as a result of Defendant's infringement.
Furthermore, the public interest is not unduly burdened. " Plaintiff cites to Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 55 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) for support. However, the proper citation is 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Moreover, the language Plaintiff cites concerns preliminary injunctions, not permanent injunctions. Plaintiff's request for permanent injunctive relief should be granted. Plaintiff's motion demonstrates that Defendant's actions have and will continue to cause irreparable harm related to diminished market value and loss of licensing fees. See Wareka v. Luxury Lab LLC, No. 823CV00665CEHSPF, 2023 WL 9119240, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:23-CV-665-CEH-SPF, 2024 WL 81815 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2024). Unless Defendant is enjoined and restrained, Plaintiff is likely to suffer further injuries that cannot be fully compensated or measured in money (e.g., third parties choosing to not pay for Plaintiff's copyrighted works if they see others using them for free).
The costs and hardship related to protecting Plaintiff's copyrighted work outweigh any potential damage to Defendant. A permanent injunction would prevent Defendant from publicly using Plaintiff's copyrighted works without permission. That is not a harm. But, even if it were, the purported “harm” would not outweigh the justification behind issuing this injunction. Finally, the imposition of a permanent injunction would not disserve the public interest because “the public interest is the interest in upholding copyright protections.” Arista Records, Inc., 298 F.Supp.2d at 1314. Therefore, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction be granted.
