Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Garcia
996 F. Supp. 770, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1006, 46 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1151 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court has the discretion to deny a reduction in statutory copyright damages for an "innocent infringer," even if the defense is properly raised, based on factors such as the scale of the infringement and the infringer's professional status, which implies a heightened duty to recognize unauthorized copies.
Facts:
- Alex Garcia owned and operated Master Video II, a video rental establishment.
- Garcia's business rented unauthorized duplicate copies of movies copyrighted by the plaintiffs.
- An investigator from the Motion Picture Association of America discovered that Garcia was renting these unauthorized tapes.
- Pursuant to a court order, U.S. Marshals seized 133 unauthorized duplicate videotapes of 102 different movies from Garcia's store.
- Each of the seized unauthorized videocassettes bore a notice of copyright.
- Garcia claimed he did not personally duplicate the tapes, did not have the equipment to do so, and had purchased them from third-party suppliers.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of motion picture producers and distributors (plaintiffs) sued Alex Garcia in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for copyright and trademark infringement.
- The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte court order directing the U.S. Marshal to seize unauthorized videotapes from Garcia's business.
- After the seizure, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against Garcia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a video store owner who distributes unauthorized duplicate videotapes create a genuine issue of material fact regarding 'innocent infringement' sufficient to avoid summary judgment on statutory damages, merely by asserting that he purchased the tapes from third parties and did not personally duplicate them?
Opinions:
Majority - Aspen, Chief Judge.
No. A defendant's assertion that he was an 'innocent infringer' because he bought unauthorized copies from a third party does not automatically create a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment on statutory damages, as the court retains discretion to reject this defense. The court first found no genuine dispute that Garcia infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights by renting unauthorized tapes. Garcia then claimed his infringement was innocent under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), which would allow the court, in its discretion, to reduce statutory damages. The court expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' counter-argument that 17 U.S.C. § 401(d) barred the defense because the unauthorized copies themselves bore copyright notices, suggesting Congress did not intend such a 'perverse outcome.' However, the court found it unnecessary to resolve that issue because the reduction of damages under § 504(c)(2) is entirely discretionary. The court declined to exercise its discretion to reduce the damages, reasoning that the large number of unauthorized copies (133 tapes of 102 movies) belied Garcia's claim of innocence and that as a proprietor of a video rental business, he should have recognized the tapes were fakes. The court therefore awarded the minimum statutory damages of $500 per infringed work and granted a permanent injunction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'innocent infringer' defense, establishing that it is not an absolute shield against statutory damages but rather a plea for the court's discretionary leniency. It heightens the duty of care for commercial distributors of copyrighted material, suggesting that professional expertise makes a claim of ignorance less credible. By holding a business owner to a higher standard, the court signals that willful blindness will not be rewarded. The opinion's thoughtful critique of applying § 401(d) to notices on counterfeit goods provides influential reasoning for future cases, preventing the statute from being used in a way that protects more sophisticated infringers who copy copyright notices over less sophisticated ones who do not.
