Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rockefeller Photos, LLC sued Obaid Partners, Inc., doing business as Sam’s Foods Supermarket, over the grocery store’s use of 21 stock photographs of fruits and vegetables. The page-1 caption prints No. 1:24-cv-01436-KES-EGC, while the running headers on pages 2 and 3 and the source docket metadata use 1:25-cv-01430-KES-EGC; the order itself does not resolve that internal mismatch. The order was dated November 1, 2026, and filed November 2, 2026. On August 19, 2026, Rockefeller moved for default judgment. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(19). The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on September 8, 2026, recommending that the motion be granted. The court directed Rockefeller to serve those findings and recommendations on Obaid at its last known address, and no objections were filed.
Rockefeller sought $630,000 in statutory damages, calculating the request at the claimed maximum of $30,000 for each of the 21 images. The district court reviewed the matter de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It agreed that the record supported Rockefeller’s entitlement to default judgment, but it separated liability and the other requested relief from the magistrate judge’s damages recommendation. The court found the proposed maximum-damages award excessive and unsupported, so it adopted the September 8 findings and recommendations only in part while granting the motion itself.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the proposed $630,000 award after comparing the request with awards in other photographic-infringement cases and with Rockefeller’s own licensing evidence. It cited Corson v. Wylde Group, Inc. for the proposition that a request for the maximum $30,000 per image appeared far beyond the upper range of many statutory-damages awards nationwide. It also contrasted this case with VHT v. Zillow Group, Inc., where the Ninth Circuit affirmed a post-trial award of $800 per image for more than 2,000 images that had not been innocently infringed. Here, by contrast, a single grocery store used 21 stock photographs of produce. Rockefeller also stated that annual license fees for its entire image library over the two-year infringement period would total only $23,976.
The court found persuasive the reasoning in Rockefeller Photos, LLC v. Bston Pizza, Inc., where another district court concluded that the statutory minimum of $750 per infringed work adequately protected Rockefeller’s copyrights and remedied infringement in similar circumstances. Applying $750 to each of the 21 images produced $15,750. After considering the record and the relevant factors identified in the findings and recommendations, the court found that amount appropriate and adequate. It therefore granted default judgment, directed judgment for Rockefeller and against Obaid, enjoined further unauthorized infringement of the 21 images, and awarded $15,750 in statutory damages with post-judgment interest under federal law. The court also awarded $2,437.50 in attorney’s fees and $536.50 in costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Entitlement to default judgment did not require the court to accept Rockefeller’s requested maximum statutory damages.
- The court reduced the damages calculation from $30,000 per image to the statutory minimum of $750 per image, yielding $15,750 for 21 photographs.
- The court relied on the nature of the use, Rockefeller’s library-wide licensing figures, and persuasive copyright-damages decisions rather than treating the requested maximum as presumptively reasonable.
- The final relief included an injunction against further unauthorized infringement, $2,437.50 in attorney’s fees, $536.50 in costs, and post-judgment interest on the damages award.
- Because the damages recommendation was rejected, the September 8 findings and recommendations were adopted in part rather than in full.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that de novo review of a default-judgment recommendation includes independent scrutiny of statutory damages, even when no objections have been filed. The court accepted the record basis for liability but required the monetary award to fit the infringement and the supporting evidence. Its comparison with VHT also shows that a per-image figure affirmed after trial in a large-scale case does not establish a floor or benchmark for a small grocery store’s use of stock photographs.
For copyright plaintiffs, the decision underscores the importance of connecting a statutory-damages request to the particular works, infringer, licensing evidence, and remedial purposes of the award. For defendants, it demonstrates that an unopposed default can still result in meaningful judicial reduction of damages, although the remaining judgment may include injunctive relief, fees, costs, and interest.