You are on page 1of 7

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MASTERFILE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. OBSTETRICS, GYNECOLOGY AND INFERTILITY, P.A, Defendant. Case No. 10-CV-308 (ADM/FLN)

DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Defendant Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility, P.A. (OGI), through its attorneys, hereby submits its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Masterfile Corporations (Masterfile) Complaint. Except as specifically admitted, qualified, or otherwise answered below, OGI denies each and every matter, thing, and allegation in Masterfiles Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This claim arises under the provisions of the Copyright Act of the United States, as amended, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and is for infringement of copyrights registered in the Copyright Office of the United States. Plaintiff alleges a claim of copyright infringement based upon Defendants unauthorized public display and reproduction of three (3) of Plaintiffs copyrighted images (the Images). Answer: OGI admits only that Masterfile alleges copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of the United States, as amended, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 1.

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 7

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), and personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). Answer: OGI generally admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. However, OGI disputes that this action was filed within the applicable statute of limitations and that Masterfile has the proper copyright registrations necessary to institute this action for copyright infringement. 3. and (c). Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)

Answer: OGI admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff is a well known stock photography company with its principal place of business at 3 Concorde Gate, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3C 3N7. Plaintiff is in the business of licensing reproduction rights in images to users for a fee. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 4 and therefore denies the same. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant OGI is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation existing under the laws of Minnesota with its principal place of business at 6405 France Avenue South, Suite W400, Edina, MN 55435. OGI provides medical services to the general public and maintains a website for this purpose at www.obgynmn.com (the Website). Answer: OGI admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant provides its services and products to clients in Minnesota, and solicits clients in Minnesota through the Website. Answer: OGI admits only that it provides its services and products to clients in Minnesota, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 7

FACTS 7. Plaintiff, a stock photography company, acquires, organizes, distributes and licenses images for commercial use in media ranging from print advertising to websites. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same. 8. Plaintiff owns and operates a website located at the URL www.masterfile.com whereby professional photo users are able to search Plaintiffs database of images in order to license selected images for an appropriate license fee. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 8 and therefore denies the same. 9. Plaintiffs images are acquired under exclusive contract from professional photographers and illustrators who are paid a royalty every time an image is licensed. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies the same. 10. By assignment agreements executed pursuant to contracts between Plaintiff and the photographers its represents, Plaintiff is the assignee of copyright in the images it acquires for its collection from photographers. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 10 and therefore denies the same. 11. As part of its usual course of business, Plaintiff registers all images in is [sic] collection with the Copyright Office. Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the same.

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 7

12. Exhibit A.

Plaintiff is the assignee of copyright in the three images identified in

Answer: OGI lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 12 and therefore denies the same. 13. Plaintiff registered its copyright in and to the Images with the United States Copyright Office and holds valid certificates of registration in the Images, effective as of November 19, 2001 and September 20, 2002. The Certificates of Registration are annexed as Exhibit B. Answer: OGI admits only that Certificates of Registration were annexed as Exhibit B to Masterfiles Complaint, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Plaintiff complied in all respects with the Copyright Act of the United States and secured the exclusive right and privilege in and to the copyright of the Photographs identified by Plaintiff as 700-00065792, 700-00086315, and 700-00089271 and by the Register of Copyrights Certificate of Registration as VA 1-108-991, VA 1148-928, VA 1-166-519. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 14. 15. On or about April 18, 2008, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was displaying the Images on the Website owned by Defendant. Upon information and belief, Defendant has displayed the Images on the Wesbite since 2003. Defendant had previously been licensed to display the Images. The license expired and Defendant continued to display the Images without license to do so. Answer: OGI admits only that it had a license to display the Images, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 15. 16. Plaintiff notified Defendant that Defendants unauthorized use of the Images violates Plaintiffs exclusive rights as copyright owner pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106, and gave Defendant an opportunity to enter into a retroactive licensing agreement or make payment for Defendants past unauthorized use prior to instituting the present action. Answer: OGI admits only that in April 2008, Masterfile accused OGI of copyright infringement and offered Masterfile a retroactive licensing agreement or a perpetual license agreement after Masterfile had led OGI to believe it was operating

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 5 of 7

under perpetual license agreements since at least 2004. OGI denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. 17. Despite Plaintiffs repeated requests for payment, Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants unauthorized use of the Images on the Website. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 17. COUNT I Infringement of Copyright Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 501 et seq. 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every averment contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 above. Answer: OGI incorporates by reference its Answers to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 above. 19. Defendant infringed Plaintiffs copyrights in the Images by reproducing and publicly displaying the Images on the Website for advertising purposes. Defendant is not, and have [sic] never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, display, distribute or use the Images. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendants conduct in reproducing and publicly displaying the Images constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 501. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 20. 21. The infringement of Plaintiffs rights in and to each of the Images constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 21. 22. The foregoing acts of infringement by Defendant has been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifference to Plaintiffs rights. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 6 of 7

23. As a result of the copyright infringement described above, Plaintiff is entitled to relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, actual or statutory damages, statutory costs and attorneys fees and prejudgment interest. Answer: OGI denies the allegations in Paragraph 23. OGIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense Invalid Copyright Registrations Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred because it does not have valid copyright registrations for the Images as required by 17 U.S.C. 411 to institute an action for copyright infringement. Second Affirmative Defense Statute of Limitations Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred because its alleged copyright infringement claim(s) accrued beyond the three year statute of limitations in 17 U.S.C. 507. Other Affirmative Defenses Based on Later Discovered Evidence OGI reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act of 1976, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case. WHEREFORE, OGI prays for entry of judgment as follows: A. Plaintiff Masterfiles Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that

Masterfile take nothing thereby; B. C. OGI be awarded its costs incurred herein; For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
6

CASE 0:10-cv-00308-ADM-FLN Document 7 Filed 03/15/10 Page 7 of 7

Dated: March 15, 2010

By:

s/Laura L. Myers Lora M. Friedemann (#259615) lfriedemann@fredlaw.com Laura L. Myers (#387116) lmyers@fredlaw.com FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

You might also like