Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf

8/16/2019 Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf

1/13

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X J OSEPH FRYE,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

- agai nst -

BENJ AMI N F. LAGERSTROM, a. k. aBENJ AMI N I RI SH, and DI ANACOLLV, I NC. ,

Def endant s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

15 Ci v. 5348 ( NRB)

I n t hi s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and br each of cont r act

act i on, pl ai nt i f f J oseph Fr ye al l eges t hat def endant s wr ongf ul l y

i ncor por at ed f oot age f r om hi s shor t f i l m i nt o vi deos t hat t hey

publ i shed on t he I nt er net . Def endant Benj ami n Lager st r om,

pr oceedi ng pr o se, moves t o di smi ss t he compl ai nt pur suant t o

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) and f or sanct i ons

agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f and hi s at t or ney under Rul e 11. For t he

f ol l owi ng r easons, t he mot i on i s deni ed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Compl ai nt , ECF No. 1 ( “Compl . ”) , al l eges t he

f ol l owi ng f act s. Pl ai nt i f f J oseph Fr ye wr i t es screenpl ays and

pr oduces, di r ect s, and edi t s vi deos and f i l ms, somet i mes usi ng


2/13

2

t he al i as “Li t t l e Li on, Ti ny Ti ger . ” Compl . ¶¶ 5–6. The

i ndi vi dual def endant Benj ami n F. Lager st r om ( t he “def endant ”)

owns and oper at es t he cor por at e def endant Di anacol l v, I nc.

( “Di anacol l v”) , a New Yor k cor por at i on. I d. ¶ 10.

I n Sept ember of 2014, Fr ye and Lager st r om r eached an

agr eement t o pr oduce a 13- page scr i pt ent i t l ed “Homel ess: A Love

St or y, ” whi ch Frye had wr i t t en and r egi st er ed wi t h t he Wr i t er s

Gui l d of Amer i ca, i nt o a shor t f i l m of t he same name. I d. ¶¶

22, 36, 40. On September 12, 2014, t he par t i es execut ed a “Cr ew

Agr eement ” under whi ch Di anacol l v woul d pr ovi de vi deo pr oduct i on

ser vi ces i n t he f or m of equi pment , cast , and crew. I d. ¶ 24,

40; see i d. Ex. B ( “Cr ew Agr eement ”) . 1 I n exchange, pl ai nt i f f

woul d pr ovi de, i nt er al i a, meal s, a makeup ar t i st , and

par t i ci pat i on cr edi t t o t he cr ew, and pr ovi de a DVD of t he

compl eted mot i on pi ct ur e wi t hi n 60 days. Cr ew Agr eement at 1.

The product i on wor k was t o be done “on specul at i on, ” meani ng

t hat def endant s woul d not be pai d but were worki ng “under t he

i dea t hat f ut ur e pai d wor k wi l l r esul t f r om t he hel p i n

pr omot i on of t he pr oj ect t hat comes wi t h sampl e/ demonst r at i on

pr oduct i on, ot her wi se known as a ‘ pi l ot [ . ] ’ ” I d. The Cr ew

Agr eement f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat “al l f oot age and mat er i al bei ng

par t of t hi s agr eement i s t he pr oper t y of t he Pr oducer ” and t hat

1 Al t hough t he Compl ai nt al l eges t he Cr ew Agreement was execut ed onSeptember 12, 2014, t he si gnat ures appear t o be dat ed Sept ember 18. Cr ewAgr eement at 2. Thi s di scr epancy i s i mmater i al .


3/13

3

Di anacol l v “wi l l not di st r i but e or di spl ay such f oot age i n any

way ot her t han as an exampl e/ demonst r at i on of t he company’ s

wor k. ” I d. Pl ai nt i f f si gned t he agr eement as t he “Producer , ”2

and Lager st r om si gned i t as t he “Cr ew Chi ef . ” Compl . ¶ 27; Cr ew

Agr eement at 2. Dur i ng negot i at i ons, pl ai nt i f f al so agr eed t o

gi ve Lager st r om cr edi t s as “Di r ect or of Phot ogr aphy” and

“Execut i ve Pr oducer ” of t he f i l m. Compl . ¶ 23.

Pr i nci pal shoot i ng of “Homel ess” commenced and was

compl eted i n Sept ember of 2014. I d. ¶¶ 41–42. I n Oct ober of

2014, as Fr ye was edi t i ng the f oot age t o pr oduce a 12–15 mi nut e

shor t f i l m, t he r el at i onshi p bet ween Frye and Lager st r om

det er i orat ed af t er t he two di sagr eed about how t o best pr omote

t he compl et ed f i l m. See i d. ¶¶ 42–46.

On Oct ober 12, 2014, def endant Lagerst r om, under t he al i as

“J er r y Sei nf el d, ” publ i shed a vi deo ent i t l ed “Pi l ot f or LL/ TT

Showt i me Net works” on t he websi t e YouTube. I d. ¶ 49. The

appr oxi mat el y si x mi nut e vi deo was composed ent i r el y of f oot age

f r om t he “Homel ess” shoot , i ncl udi ng an “i mpor t ant par t ” of t he

compl et ed f i l m t hat Lager st r om had edi t ed di f f er ent l y. I d. ¶¶

49, 51, 52. I n t hi s vi deo, Lager st r om l abel ed hi msel f as

“Di r ect or . ” I d. ¶ 50. Pl ai nt i f f di scover ed t he vi deo and, by

emai l dat ed November 14, 2015, i nsi st ed Lager st r om r emove i t .

2 El sewher e, t he Cr ew Agr eement i dent i f i es t he “Producer ” as “Li t t l eLi on- Ti ny Ti ger . ” Cr ew Agr eement at 1.


4/13

4

I d. ¶ 52. Lager st r om r ef used, r espondi ng wi t h a l et t er st yl ed

“Or der ” t o pl ai nt i f f and st af f at Showt i me Net wor ks I nc. ,

accusi ng pl ai nt i f f of f al sel y repr esent i ng t hat Showt i me was

i nt er est ed i n the “Homel ess” pr oj ect , 3 accusi ng pl ai nt i f f of

cer t ai n “cri mi nal act i vi t y, ” and asser t i ng def endant s’ r i ght t o

use t he f oot age. I d. ¶ 53; see i d. Ex. G. Def endant sent

addi t i onal l et t er s and emai l s t o Showt i me st af f l evel i ng si mi l ar

accusat i ons. I d. ¶ 54.

Meanwhi l e, i n December of 2014, havi ng compl et ed hi s

edi t i ng of “Homel ess, ” pl ai nt i f f appl i ed f or copyr i ght

r egi st r at i on. He r ecei ved cer t i f i cat es of r egi st r at i on f or the

t ext of “Homel ess” ( ef f ect i ve December 26, 2014) and f or t he

mot i on pi ct ur e ( ef f ect i ve J anuar y 20, 2015) . I d. ¶ 15; see i d.

Ex. A.

Bet ween Apr i l and J une of 2015, def endant publ i shed thr ee

addi t i onal vi deos on t he websi t es Vi meo and YouTube. I d. ¶¶ 60–

62. These vi deos - - ent i t l ed “Mar gar i t a’ s Mi l l i ons, ” “J ack, La

Hi st or i a de J ack Veneno, ” and “La Hi st or i a de J ack Veneno.

Document al de Benj ami n I r i sh con Ri c Fl ai r y Rel ampago

Her nandez” - - each i ncor por at ed f oot age f r om “Homel ess” t o

3 Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat , at t he t i me, he was empl oyed by Showt i meNet wor ks as an associ at e pr oducer f or I nt er act i ve Tel evi si on. Compl . ¶ 7.I n Sept ember of 2014, he i nf ormed Showt i me about t he product i on of “Homel ess”t o f ul f i l l a “r i ght of f i rst refusal ” obl i gat i on t hat was a condi t i on of hi sempl oyment , and he t ol d def endant s about t hi s requi r ement . I d. ¶¶ 32–33.However , pl ai nt i f f di d not wr i t e, pr oduce, or di r ect “Homel ess” as par t ofany agr eement wi t h Showt i me. I d. ¶ 34.


5/13

5

cr eat e a pol emi c about t he ent er t ai nment i ndust r y. I d. The

vi deos accused pl ai nt i f f of conspi r i ng wi t h Showt i me i n or der t o

har m Lager st r om. I d.

On J une 22, 2015, pl ai nt i f f , t hr ough counsel , sent

def endant a cease and desi st l et t er . I d. ¶ 63. Def endant

r esponded by wr i t i ng: “Your cl i ent i s goi ng t o j ai l . . . . gi ve me

a br eak. ” I d. ¶ 64. On J une 28, 2015, def endant publ i shed a

vi deo on YouTube ent i t l ed “Mar gar i t a’ s Mi l l i ons Teaser ” t hat

used f oot age f r om “Homel ess” t o create another pol emi c about t he

ent er t ai nment i ndust r y and accuse pl ai nt i f f and Showt i me of

mi sconduct . I d. ¶ 68. Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed copyr i ght not i ces t o

YouTube and Vemeo, i d. ¶¶ 65, 67, 70, some of whi ch Lager st r om

opposed, i d. ¶ 69. As of t he f i l i ng of t he Compl ai nt , some of

t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng vi deos r emai ned avai l abl e on YouTube.

I d. ¶ 73.

B. Procedural History

On J ul y 10, 2015, pl ai nt i f f f i l ed hi s Compl ai nt i n t hi s

Cour t , al l egi ng ( 1) copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and ( 2) br each of

cont r act . 4 Def endant Lager st r om, pr oceedi ng pr o se, f i l ed f our

separate responses t o t he compl ai nt : a “memorandum of l aw i n

suppor t of mot i on t o di smi ss, ” an “answer , af f i r mat i ve def enses,

4 Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Compl ai nt al so cont ai ns “causes of acti on” f or (3)“i nj unct i on” under 17 U. S. C. § 502, ( 4) “st at ut ory damages” under 17 U. S. C. §504, and ( 5) “sei zure and i mpoundi ng” under 17 U. S. C. § 503. These cl ai msar e not st and- al one causes of act i on but r equest s f or r el i ef under t heCopyri ght Act . We t her ef or e r egar d t hem as par t of t he copyri ghti nf r i ngement cl ai m advanced i n Count One.


6/13

6

and count er cl ai ms, ” a “mot i on and/ or pet i t i on f or decl ar at or y

j udgment , ” and “proposed amended answer s, def enses, and

count er cl ai ms. ” Separ at el y, he made r equest s f or sanct i ons and

t o submi t addi t i onal evi dence. By l et t er dat ed Sept ember 24,

2015, we st r uck def endant ’ s r esponses t o t he compl ai nt and

gr ant ed hi m l eave t o f i l e a r evi sed, si ngl e document t o ser ve as

hi s oper at i ve mot i on or pl eadi ng at t hi s st age of t he

l i t i gat i on. ECF No. 43. Def endant ’ s “Oper at i ve Mot i on t o

Di smi ss t he Compl ai nt and Request f or Sanct i ons” and associ ated

memorandum, ECF No. 45 ( “Mem. ”) , f i l ed Oct ober 2, 2015, i s t hat

mot i on, whi ch we addr ess her e. Pl ai nt i f f r esponded by

memor andum dat ed November 5, 2015, ECF No. 48 ( “Opp’ n”) , and

def endant r epl i ed on December 3, 2015, ECF No. 52 ( “Repl y”) .

Fi nal l y, despi t e our war ni ngs t o Mr . Lager st r om t hat he coul d

not r epr esent a cor por at i on i n cour t , t he cor por at e def endant

Di anacol l v r emai ns unr epr esent ed and has def aul t ed. 5 ECF No. 50.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

On a mot i on t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l

Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , t he Cour t must accept as t r ue al l f act ual

al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt and dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences

5 On December 18, 2015, we deni ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s mot i on f or a f i nal def aul t j udgment agai nst Di anacol l v wi t hout prej udi ce t o i t s r enewal , gi ven t hependi ng cl ai ms agai nst Mr . Lagerst r om. ECF No. 60.


7/13

7

i n t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s f avor . ATSI Commc’ ns, I nc. v. Shaar Fund,

Lt d. , 493 F. 3d 87, 98 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) . However , “[ t ] hr eadbar e

r eci t al s of a cause of act i on' s el ement s, suppor t ed by mer e

concl usor y st at ement s . . . ar e not ent i t l ed t o t he assumpt i on

of t r ut h. ” Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678–79 ( 2009) . I n

or der t o wi t hst and a chal l enge under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) , a pl ai nt i f f

must al l ege “enough f act s t o st at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef t hat i s

pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. ” Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S.

544, 510 ( 2007) . I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he Cour t may

consi der exhi bi t s t o the compl ai nt and document s i ncorporated by

r ef er ence i nt o t he compl ai nt . Wei nst ei n Co. v. Smokewood Ent m’ t

Gr p. , LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2d 332, 338 ( S. D. N. Y. 2009) .

Def endant Lager st r om i s pr oceedi ng pr o se. “I t i s wel l

est abl i shed t hat t he submi ssi ons of a pr o se l i t i gant must be

const r ued l i ber al l y and i nt er pr et ed t o r ai se t he st r ongest

argument s t hat t hey suggest . ” Tr i est man v. Fed. Bur eau of

Pr i sons, 470 F. 3d 471, 474 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed; emphasi s removed) . Yet “pr o se st at us ‘ does not

exempt a par t y f r om compl i ance wi t h r el evant r ul es of pr ocedur al

and subst ant i ve l aw. ’ ” Boddi e v. New Yor k St at e Di v. of Par ol e,

285 F. Supp. 2d 421, 426 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) ( quot i ng Tragut h v.

Zuck, 710 F. 2d 90, 95 ( 2d Ci r . 1983) ) .

B. Analysis

1. Copyright Infringement


8/13

8

Copyr i ght owner s possess t he excl usi ve r i ght s t o r epr oduce,

per f or m publ i cl y, di spl ay publ i cl y, pr epar e der i vat i ve wor ks of ,

and di st r i but e copi es of t hei r copyr i ght ed wor ks. 17 U. S. C. §

106; see Ar i st a Recor ds, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F. 3d 110, 117 ( 2d

Ci r . 2010) . To est abl i sh a cl ai m of copyr i ght i nf r i ngement ,

“‘ t wo el ement s must be pr oven: ( 1) owner shi p of a val i d

copyr i ght , and ( 2) copyi ng of const i t uent el ement s of t he wor k

t hat are or i gi nal . ’ ” Ar i st a Recor ds, 604 F. 3d at 117 ( quot i ng

Fei st Publ ’ ns, I nc. v. Rur al Tel . Ser v. Co. , 499 U. S. 340, 361

( 1991) ) . The pr esent at i on of a cer t i f i cat e of copyr i ght

r egi st r at i on pr ovi des pr i ma f aci e evi dence of bot h t he val i di t y

of t he copyr i ght , 17 U. S. C. § 410( c) , and t he or i gi nal i t y of t he

wor k, Boi sson v. Bani an, Lt d, 273 F. 3d 262, 268 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) .

The copyi ng of or i gi nal el ements of t he wor k can be est abl i shed

t hr ough ei t her di r ect or i ndi r ect evi dence. Boi sson, 273 F. 3d

at 267.

Her e, pl ai nt i f f adequat el y al l eges copyr i ght i nf r i ngement .

As exhi bi t s t o t he Compl ai nt , he submi t s copyr i ght r egi st r at i on

cer t i f i cat es f or t he text and mot i on pi ct ur e of “Homel ess, ”

ent i t l i ng hi m t o a pr esumpt i on of a val i d copyr i ght f or an

or i gi nal wor k. Compl . Ex. A, at 1–4. He f ur t her al l eges t hat

def endant i ncor por at ed vi deo shot i n connect i on wi t h t he pr oj ect

i nt o f i ve vi deos t hat def endant publ i shed on t he I nt er net . He


9/13

9

pr ovi des t he t i t l es, dat es of publ i cat i on, and I nt er net

addr esses of t he al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng vi deos.

Lager st r om does not di sput e t hat he cr eat ed and publ i shed

t he vi deos, composed at l east i n par t of f oot age f r om t he

f i l mi ng of “Homel ess, ” obvi at i ng any quest i on t hat or i gi nal

mat er i al was act ual l y copi ed. I nst ead, he cont ends t hat hi s

conduct di d not const i t ut e copyr i ght i nf r i ngement because ( 1)

t he Cr ew Agr eement cont ai ns a t r ansf er or assi gnment of t he

r i ght t o use t he f oot age, Repl y 3–5; 6 ( 2) pl ai nt i f f ’ s copyr i ght s

ar e “f r audul ent ” because the wor k was “pl agi ar i zed, ” Repl y 3, 6;

and ( 3) hi s uses of t he f oot age ar e pr ot ect ed by the Fi r st

Amendment , Repl y 4, 10, 14.

None of t hese ar gument s i s advanced wi t h a suf f i ci ent

f act ual or l egal basi s t o be pl ausi bl e. Even i f t hey wer e, such

af f i r mat i ve def enses woul d r el y on f act s out si de the compl ai nt

and t her ef or e woul d not be appr opr i at e t o addr ess i n t hi s

cont ext . See Capi t ol Recor ds, I nc. v. MP3t unes, LLC, No. 07

Ci v. 9931( WHP) , 2009 WL 3364036, at *3 ( S. D. N. Y. Oct . 16, 2009)

( “Whi l e a compl ai nt can be di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a

cl ai m pur suant t o a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on r ai si ng an af f i r mat i ve

6 As noted, t he Cr ew Agr eement st at es j ust t he opposi t e, t hat “al lf oot age and mat eri al bei ng part of t hi s agr eement i s t he pr oper t y of t hePr oducer ” and t hat def endant s “wi l l not di st r i but e or di spl ay such f oot age i nany way ot her t han as an exampl e/ demonst r at i on” of t hei r work. Cr ewAgreement at 1. We t ake def endant ’ s ar gument t o be t hat hi s vi deos ar emer el y “demonst r at i ons” of hi s wor k. Pl ai nt i f f has adequat el y al l eged,however , t hat gi ven t he cust om and pr act i ce i n t he mot i on pi ct ur e i ndust r y,none of def endant s’ vi deos i s cor r ect l y vi ewed as an “exampl e/ demonst r at i on”i n t he sense of a “t easer , t r ai l er or r eel sampl e. ” Compl . ¶¶ 26, 51.


10/13

10

def ense i f t he def ense appear s on t he f ace of t he compl ai nt , t he

compl ai nt i t sel f must est abl i sh t he f act s necessar y to sust ai n

def endant ’ s def ense. ” ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, br acket s, and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Kel l y–Br own v. Wi nf r ey, 717 F. 3d

295, 308 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) ( “Af f i r mat i ve def enses” t hat “r equi r e[ ]

consi der at i on of f act s out si de t he compl ai nt ” ar e “i nappr opr i at e

t o r esol ve on a mot i on t o di smi ss. ”) .

2. Breach of Contract

Pl ai nt i f f al so adequat el y al l eges br each of cont r act . The

el ement s of a cause of act i on f or br each of cont r act under New

Yor k l aw7 ar e: ( 1) t he exi st ence of a cont r act ; ( 2) per f or mance

of t he cont r act by one par t y; ( 3) br each by the ot her part y; and

( 4) damages suf f er ed as a r esul t of t he br each. Fi r st I nvest or s

Cor p. v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 152 F. 3d 162, 168 ( 2d Ci r .

1998) . Her e, pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t he Cr ew Agr eement const i t ut ed a

bi ndi ng cont r act ; t hat pl ai nt i f f had f ul l y per f or med t he

cont r act t hr ough Oct ober of 2014; t hat def endant br eached the

cont r act , bot h by hi s unaut hor i zed use of t he f oot age and by

f al sel y cl ai mi ng t hat he was t he Di r ect or of t he pr oj ect ; and

t hat pl ai nt i f f was damaged because hi s own pl ans f or pr omot i ng

and rel easi ng “Homel ess” wer e f r ust r at ed.

7 The par t i es f ai l t o addr ess what l aw gover ns t hei r cont r act . Based ont he Compl ai nt and t he br i ef i ng on t he mot i on t o di smi ss, i t appear s t hat Fr yeand Lagers t r om are r esi dent s of New Yor k, t hat t he Cr ew Agr eement wasnegot i at ed and execut ed i n New York, and t hat “Homel ess” was f i l med i n New

Yor k. Ther ef or e, we presume New Yor k l aw appl i es.


11/13


12/13

wronged by the

o t h e r s

conduct re l a t ing to the ed i t ing , re l ea se ,

and promotion of Homeless .

However, the Cour t s ro l e i s not

to

r ep a i r or

resolve t h i s re l a

t

1onship,

but

to eva lua te

ega

cla1ms

proper ly

advanced

under

the

Federal Rules.

We

urge

the

pa r t i e s

to

t hough t fu l ly consider

the mer i t s and value of t h i s

act1on,

given the1r crea t ive and f inanc ia l i n t e r e s t s ,

and

whether

a

se t t lement

of t h i s case would be more sens ib l e than

cont1nued l i t i g a t i o n . I f

the p a r t i e s

are both i n t e res t ed in

pursuing the

se t t lement route ,

the Court would r e f e r

t h i s

case

to a

Magis t ra te

Judge

to

a s s i s t :n

t ha t

endeavor.

I I I CONCLUSION

For the foregoing

reasons ,

Defendant Lagers t rom s mot1on to

dismiss

and h1s reques t

fo r sanc t ions a re

denied .

The p a r t i e s

should

inform

the Court with in t en

days

i f

they wish a

re fe r ra l

to a

Magis t ra te

Judge fo r

se t t lement .

This

Memorandum and Order

reso lves Docket Number

45.

SO ORDERED

Dated:

New York, New York

May 23, 2016

L ~ ~

OMI REICE

BUCHW LD

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT

JUDGE

12


13/13

Copies of the foregoing Memorandum and Order have been mailed on

t h i s

da te

to

the fol lowing:

Attorney

for l a in t i f f

Danny

J imin ian

Esq.

Jim1n1an Law PLLC

65 Payson Avenue Su i t e

New York NY 10034

Defendant pro se

Benjamin F Lagers t rom

529 W 29th S t r ee t PHD

New York NY 10001

13

Documents

Frye v. Lagerstrom - opinion.pdf