Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 2797
`
`ALEXANDER M. DUDELSON, ESQ. (AD4809)
`26 Court Street - Suite 2306
`Brooklyn, New York 11242
`(718) 855-5100
`(718) 624-9552 Fax
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------X
`CISERO K. MURPHY JR.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`TYRIEK A. MURPHY,
`
`Defendant.
`-------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`Case No.: 20-cv-02388 (JRC)
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`ALEXANDER M. DUDELSON, ESQ. (AD4809)
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`26 Court Street - Suite 2306
`Brooklyn, New York 11242
`(718) 855-5100
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2798
`
`Table of Contents:
`
`Table of Authorities..........................................................................................................................i
`
`Preliminary Statement......................................................................................................................1
`
`Procedural History............................................................................................................................1
`
`Counter-Statement of Facts..............................................................................................................3
`
`Argument..........................................................................................................................................3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint Seeks Statutory Damages......................................................5
`
`Defendant Tyriek Murphy’s First Act of Infringement
`was Publishing and Offering the Copyrighted Work
`for Sale to the Public.................................................................................................6
`
`Conclusion......................................................................................................................................10
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 2799
`
`Statutes:
`
`Table of Authorities:
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a)............................................................................................................................4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106................................................................................................................................4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(3)...........................................................................................................................7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 412................................................................................................................................6
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501................................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(a)............................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).......................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).......................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)............................................................................................................................3
`
`Cases:
`
`Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)......................3
`
`Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc., 59 F.3d 317 (2d Cir.1995)...........................................8
`
`All-Star Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Media Brands Co., Ltd.,
`775 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)..............................................................................................5
`
`Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Broadcasting–Paramount Theatres, Inc.,
`388 F.2d 272 (2d Cir.1967)..............................................................................................................4
`
`Amandor v. McDonald’s Corp., 601 F.Supp2d 403 (D.P.R. 2009).................................................8
`
`Anderson v. Primera Plana NY, Inc.,
`17 CV 7715, 2019 WL 1936741 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2019).........................................................8
`
`Antenna Television v. Aegean Video, Inc.,
`No. 95 CV 2328, 1996 WL 298252 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1996).......................................................5
`
`Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010)...........................................................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 2800
`
`Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F.Supp.2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
`
`Binder v. Long Island Lighting Co., 933 F.2d 187 (2d Cir.1991)....................................................4
`
`CJ Prods., LLC v. Your Store Online LLC,
`No. 11 CV 9513, 2012 WL 2856068 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012)......................................................6
`
`Crowley v. Jones, 608 F.Supp.3d 78 (S.D.N.Y 2022)......................................................................8
`
`Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008).......................................9
`
`Fischer v. Forrest, 14 CV 1304, 2017 WL 2992663 (S.D.N.Y July 14, 2017)................................8
`
`Holt v. KMI–Continental, Inc., 95 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.1996)..............................................................3
`
`Irwin v. ZDF Enters. GmbH,
`04 Civ. 8027, 2006 WL 374960 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2006)..............................................................7
`
`Jeremiah v. 5 Towns Jewish Times, Inc.,
`22 CV 5942, 2023 WL 5703698 (E.D.N.Y. September 5, 2023)....................................................8
`
`L.B. Foster Co. v. Am. Piles, Inc., 138 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.1998).........................................................4
`
`Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Sentimental NY,
`No. 14 CV 2576, 2016 WL 3620787 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016)......................................................4
`
`National Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture,
`131 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)...............................................................................................5
`
`New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini,
`533 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 2381, 150 L.Ed.2d 500 (2001)..................................................................9
`
`Psihoyos v. Liberation, Inc.,
`96 CV 3609, 1997 WL 218468 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.30, 1997)......................................................8
`
`Singh v. Famous Overseas, Inc., 680 F.Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)...........................................6, 8
`
`Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc.,
`No. 16 CV 724, 2016 WL 4126543 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016).........................................................6
`
`Steele v. Bell, No. 11 CV. 9343, 2014 WL 1979227 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014).............................6
`
`Tangore v. Mako, Inc., 01 CV 4430, 2003 WL 470577 (S.D.N.Y January 6, 2003).......................7
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 2801
`
`Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publication Intern., Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d.Cir. 1993)...............8
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 2802
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
`
`Plaintiff Cisero K. Murphy, Jr. is the son and namesake of Cisero Murphy Sr., a professional
`
`billiard player, and the first African-American to win world and U.S. National Billiards
`
`Championships. Cisero Murphy Sr. has often been referred to as “the Jackie Robinson of Billiards.”
`
`From 2008 to 2016, Plaintiff devoted himself to researching and writing a biography about his late
`
`father entitled “Big City Knights: The Biography of: Cisero “Sonny” Murphy A World-Class
`
`Champion.” Before plaintiff was able to publish or sell his father’s biography, his own son,
`
`defendant Tyriek Murphy, stole it, and published and sold the work as his own creation under the
`
`title “Big City Nights: The Biography of The Legendary Cisero Murphy,” thereby violating the
`
`plaintiff’s right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale.
`
`Taking every statement in defendant’s Rule 56.1 statement as true, should this Court
`
`determine that plaintiff Cisero K. Murphy, Jr. is the owner of the copyrighted works, plaintiff is
`
`entitled to statutory damages. The measure of damages based on the defendant’s willful conduct
`
`shall be an issue for trial.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
`
`On May 27, 2020, the plaintiff, pro se, commenced an action in the United States District
`
`Court, Eastern District of New York, seeking the following relief: (a) a declaration that he is the sole
`
`owner and author of the Printed Copyrighted Work, Big City Knights: The Biography of: Cisero
`
`“Sonny” Murphy A World-Class Champion, Big City Nights: The Autobiography of The Legendary
`
`Cisero Murphy; (b) injunctive and monetary relief for defendant’s willful infringement of plaintiff’s
`
`copyrights; (c) a declaration that the forged agreement dated January 25, 2017 is null and void, and
`
`(d) an award of damages in an amount equal to plaintiff’s monetary contribution to the formation
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 2803
`
`of Murphy Enterprise Solutions LLC. (Exhibit “A”). On May 1, 2021, defendant, filed a pro se
`
`“Motion to Dismiss Pre-Answer,” which has been accepted by the Court as an answer with
`
`counterclaims. (Exhibit “B”). Plaintiff’s reply to the counterclaims is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`“C”). Contemporaneously with the filing of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on issues
`
`of damages, plaintiff Cisero K. Murphy, Jr. moved for partial summary judgment for a declaration
`
`that he is the owner of the Copyrighted Works.
`
`COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS:
`
`Defendant Tyriek Murphy registered the work Big City Nights: The Biography of the
`
`Legendary Cisero Murphy (“Big City Nights”) with the Copyright Office on January 19, 2017 under
`
`copyright registration number TXu002130697. (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ryan P. Bisaillon)
`
`(hereinafter “Bisaillon Decl.”). After registering Big City Nights with the Copyright Office, Tyriek
`
`Murphy engaged a publishing company, Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc. (“Dorrance”), to assist with
`
`the process of publishing Big City Nights. (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tyriek A. Murphy)
`
`(hereinafter “Tyriek Murphy Decl.”). On or before March 7, 2017, Tyriek Murphy provided a
`
`completed manuscript copy of Big City Nights to Dorrance. (Bisaillon Decl. Ex. C). Pursuant to a
`
`March 7, 2017 agreement between defendant Tyriek Murphy and Dorrance, defendant engaged
`
`Dorrance to perform services including “publish[ing] [Big City Nights] for print and e-book
`
`distribution.” (Tyriek Murphy Decl. Ex. A). Pursuant to the March 7, 2017 agreement between
`
`Tyriek and Dorrance, Tyriek paid Dorrance a total of $5,900 in a one-time payment made using his
`
`debit card. (Tyriek Murphy Decl. ¶ 4). Between March 7, 2017 and August 31, 2017, copies of Big
`
`City Nights were distributed to multiple employees of Dorrance, including page formatting and cover
`
`art staff. (Bisaillon Decl. Ex. at 19:21-22:18, 34:15-35:1). Between March 7, 2017 and August 31,
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 2804
`
`2017, copies of Big City Nights, including an edited manuscript, page design proofs, and cover
`
`design proofs, were sent from Dorrance to Tyriek Murphy. Id. at 21:25-23:1, 34:22-35:1. Dorrance
`
`provided an edited copy of the Big City Nights manuscript to Tyriek Murphy on May 16, 2017.
`
`Defendant Tyriek Murphy approved Dorrance’s proposed edits to the Big City Nights manuscript
`
`on May 17, 2017. (Id. at 23:3-18).
`
`On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff Cisero K. Murphy, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) registered the work Big City
`
`Knights: The Biography of: Cisero “Sonny” Murphy A World-Class Champion (“Big City Knights”)
`
`with the Copyright Office as an unpublished printed work under copyright registration number
`
`TXu002053010. (Bisaillon Decl. Ex. F). On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff registered a work titled Big City
`
`Nights with the Copyright Office as an unpublished electronic file under copyright registration
`
`number TXu002060114. (Bisaillon Decl. Ex. G). Dorrance published and first printed Big City
`
`Nights on August 31, 2017. (Bisaillon Decl. Ex. D, at 2).
`
`ARGUMENT:
`
`Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for summary judgment
`
`may be granted when the parties’ sworn submissions show that “there is no genuine issue as to any
`
`material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`56(c); see also Holt v. KMI–Continental, Inc., 95 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.1996). The moving party
`
`bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress
`
`& Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). In considering a summary
`
`judgment motion, the Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against
`
`whom summary judgment is sought and must draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.” L.B.
`
`Foster Co. v. Am. Piles, Inc., 138 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir.1998). Overall, the Court “cannot try issues
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 2805
`
`of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am.
`
`Broadcasting–Paramount Theatres, Inc., 388 F.2d 272, 279 (2d Cir.1967). Only where there is no
`
`genuine issue of material fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
`
`party, is summary judgment appropriate. See Binder v. Long Island Lighting Co., 933 F.2d 187, 191
`
`(2d Cir.1991).
`
`Under the Copyright Act, “[c]opyright protection subsists. . . in original works of authorship
`
`fixed in any tangible medium of expression. . . from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or
`
`otherwise communicated.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants the
`
`following exclusive rights to the owner:
`
`(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare
`derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or
`phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of
`ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical,
`dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other
`audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of
`literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial,
`graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or
`other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case
`of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital
`audio transmission.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106; see also Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546,
`
`105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (“Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of
`
`exclusive rights to the owner of the copyright.”). “‘The word copying is shorthand for the infringing
`
`of any of the copyright owner’s [ ] exclusive rights described in § 106.’” Malibu Textiles, Inc. v.
`
`Sentimental NY, No. 14 CV 2576, 2016 WL 3620787, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted) quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2010).
`
`Under the Act, “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 2806
`
`by sections 106 through 122. . . is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may
`
`be.” 17 U.S.C. § 501.
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKS STATUTORY DAMAGES.
`
`The Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner can seek to recover his or her actual
`
`damages or statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(a). Here, plaintiff seeks an award of statutory
`
`damages. Section 504 of the Copyright Act allows courts to award statutory damages in an amount
`
`of “not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just,” for each work where the
`
`plaintiff can demonstrate that the copyright has been infringed. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). In addition,
`
`the Act authorizes an award of enhanced damages of “not more than $150,000” where “the
`
`infringement was committed willfully.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
`
`Statutory damages serve two purposes: “‘to provide adequate compensation to the copyright
`
`holder and to deter infringement.’” Antenna Television v. Aegean Video, Inc., No. 95 CV 2328,
`
`1996 WL 298252, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1996). Statutory damages are available even in the
`
`absence of any proof of defendant’s profit or the loss sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the
`
`infringement. See All-Star Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Media Brands Co., Ltd., 775 F. Supp. 2d 613, 626
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2011) (explaining that “[s]tatutory damages for copyright infringement ‘are available
`
`without proof of plaintiff’s actual damages or proof of any damages’” quoting National Football
`
`League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 131 F. Supp. 2d 458, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2001]).
`
`Under the Copyright Act, the copyright owner may choose to recover statutory damages,
`
`“‘instead of actual damages and defendant's profits. . . even if he has intentionally declined to offer
`
`such evidence [as to actual damages], although it was available.’” CJ Prods., LLC v. Your Store
`
`Online LLC, No. 11 CV 9513, 2012 WL 2856068, at *2 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012). In the instant
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 2807
`
`case, plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages. (Exhibit “A,” COUNT II). Pursuant to 17
`
`U.S.C. § 412, statutory damages and attorney’s fees are not available if:
`
`(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the
`effective date of its registration; or (2) any infringement of copyright commenced
`after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration,
`unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the
`work.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 412. Congress’ evident purpose was to induce those owning copyrightable works to
`
`register them promptly. Singh v. Famous Overseas, Inc., 680 F.Supp. 533, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).
`
`The legislative history and intent of the statute does not consider the unique set of facts of the
`
`outright theft of an original work. Likewise, there does not seem to be case law with facts and
`
`circumstances similar to matter presently at bar.
`
`II.
`
`DEFENDANT TYRIEK MURPHY’S FIRST ACT OF INFRINGEMENT
`WAS PUBLISHING AND OFFERING THE COPYRIGHTED WORK FOR
`SALE TO THE PUBLIC.
`
`In publishing Big City Nights through Dorrence Publishing, defendant Tyriek Murphy,
`
`violated the plaintiff Cisero Murphy, Jr.’s right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the
`
`public by sale. Courts in this District have consistently applied a bright-line rule in cases where the
`
`first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements occurred prior to the work’s copyright
`
`registration. See, e.g., Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc., No. 16 CV 724, 2016 WL
`
`4126543, at *2–4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016); Steele v. Bell, No. 11 CV. 9343, 2014 WL 1979227, at
`
`*9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014). “[W]hen the same defendant infringes on the same protected work in
`
`the same manner as it did prior to the work’s registration, the post-registration infringement
`
`constitutes the continuation of a series of ongoing infringements.” Solid Oak Sketches, 2016 WL
`
`4126543, at *3. For example, an updated version of a video game released two years after its
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 2808
`
`original is part of the same ongoing infringement. See id. Similarly, a “newly configured version
`
`of [a television] program” with a different title also constitutes a continuation of the program’s
`
`earlier infringement. Irwin v. ZDF Enters. GmbH, No. 04 Civ. 8027, 2006 WL 374960, at *2
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2006).
`
`The sole question herein is when did copyright infringement first take place? It is undisputed
`
`that on June 15, 2017, plaintiff Cisero K. Murphy, Jr. registered the work Big City Knights: The
`
`Biography of: Cisero “Sonny” Murphy A World-Class Champion (“Big City Knights”) with the
`
`Copyright Office as an unpublished printed work under copyright registration number
`
`TXu002053010. Likewise, on July 3, 2017, Plaintiff registered a work titled Big City Nights with
`
`the Copyright Office as an unpublished electronic file under copyright registration number
`
`TXu002060114. Defendant contends that the first infringement occurred on March 7, 2017, when
`
`Tyriek created a complete manuscript of the allegedly infringing work and distributed the manuscript
`
`to Dorrance Publishing. Defendant’s contention is untenable. The right violated herein is plaintiff’s
`
`right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale. In Tangore v. Mako, Inc.,
`
`01 CV 4430, 2003 WL 470577 *9 (S.D.N.Y January 6, 2003), the District Court held that displaying
`
`or providing the printed work to a third party for printing and publication could not qualify as an
`
`infringement, because the third-parties could not be considered the “public.” In finding that the
`
`infringement took place upon distributing the work to the public, the court held:
`
`Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act grants copyright owners the exclusive right “to
`distribute copies. . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of
`ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); see also Agee v.
`Paramount Communications, Inc., 59 F.3d 317, 321 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that a
`copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work
`to the public); Psihoyos v. Liberation, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 3609 (LMM), 1997 WL
`218468 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.30, 1997) (“Distribution of a copyrighted image is the
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 2809
`
`exclusive right of the copyright owner, and any unauthorized distribution of such an
`image infringes the copyright.”). Here, it is undisputed that [defendant] permitted its
`customers to take copies of the [defendant’s] Calendar without authorization from
`[plaintiff]. This is fairly characterized as unauthorized distribution, and,
`accordingly, [plaintiff] is entitled to summary judgment of infringement regarding
`this aspect of his copyright claim.
`
`(emphasis supplied); see also Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publication Intern., Ltd., 996 F.2d
`
`1366, 1370 (2d.Cir. 1993) (Infringement commenced upon publication of the infringing book);
`
`Jeremiah v. 5 Towns Jewish Times, Inc., 22 CV 5942, 2023 WL 5703698 *7 (E.D.N.Y. September
`
`5, 2023) (The date of infringement is when the picture was published on the website); Crowley v.
`
`Jones, 608 F.Supp.3d 78, 84 and 89 (S.D.N.Y 2022) (Infringement first commenced on release of
`
`album on digital platforms, with album art featuring a derivative version of plaintiff’s photograph);
`
`Anderson v. Primera Plana NY, Inc., 17 CV 7715, 2019 WL 1936741 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. March 29,
`
`2019) (The date of infringement is publication); Fischer v. Forrest, 14 CV 1304, 2017 WL 2992663
`
`*13 (S.D.N.Y July 14, 2017) (First acts of infringement were publication on website and mailing of
`
`catalogue, which contained the subject phrases); Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633
`
`F.Supp.2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Defendants’ service directly infringes their copyrights by engaging
`
`in unauthorized distribution of copies of their musical works to subscribers who request them for
`
`download.”); Singh v. Famous Overseas, Inc., 680 F.Supp. 533, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Considering
`
`both the wording of the section and its legislative history, the court holds that the manufacture and
`
`sale in 1983 of the works in this case ‘commenced’ an ‘infringement’ within the meaning of section
`
`412.”). This follows the holding in New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct.
`
`2381, 150 L.Ed.2d 500 (2001). In that case, the defendants operated an online database from which
`
`users could download digital copies of newspaper articles on request. See id. at 498, 121 S.Ct. 2381.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02388-JRC Document 68 Filed 05/07/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 2810
`
`The Supreme Court found that it was “clear” that “by selling copies of the Articles through the
`
`NEXIS Database,” the defendants “‘distribute copies’ of the Articles ‘to the public by sale’” in
`
`violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive right of distribution. Id. Courts in other Circuits have
`
`also held that the infringement commences at the time that infringer makes the work available to the
`
`public. See Amandor v. McDonald’s Corp., 601 F.Supp2d 403 (D.P.R. 2009) (“ongoing
`
`infringement commenced in 2001 when Plaintiff’s two (2) photos were first published in the
`
`McDonald’s at LMMIA”); Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir.
`
`2008) (finding that a defendant engaged in ongoing infringement which commenced when the
`
`defendant first distributed garments with the infringing hang tag). Accordingly, plaintiff would not
`
`have any basis for a copyright claim against defendant Tyriek Murphy based on defendant furnishing
`
`a copy of the work to Dorrence Publishing for printing and distribution. The copyright infringement
`
`took place after Dorrance printed and published Big City Nights, on behalf of Tyriek Murphy, on
`
`August 31, 2017 and offered it for sale.
`
`CONCLUSION:
`
`For all the reasons stated above, plaintiff Cisero Murphy, Jr. respectfully requests that
`
`defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissing plaintiff’s claim for
`
`statutory damages under the Copyright Act, be denied.
`
`Dated: Brooklyn, New York
`March 19, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`ALEXANDER M. DUDELSON, ESQ. (AD4809)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`26 Court Street - Suite 2306
`Brooklyn, New York 11242
`(718) 855-5100
`
`-9-
`
`