District Judge Nixes Photo Licensing Agency’s Infringement Claim

Media company Ammoland Inc. won dismissal of a lawsuit over its use of a photo of two bald eagles as a New Jersey federal judge ruled a licensing agency lacked standing to bring the infringement claim.

US District Judge Georgette Castner found that Minden Pictures, Inc., a California-based wildlife and nature photograph licensing agency, had a licensing agreement that was no longer effective on the date it filed the complaint in 2020, according to the June 30 summary judgment in which she dismissed the suit without prejudice. Castner said a subsequent amendment to the original licensing agreement signed after the complaint was filed could not retroactively cure the lack of standing.

In 2014, Ammoland published an article about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer establishing “American Bald Eagle Day” and used a photo depicting a snowy scene in which two bald eagles perch on a branch. The photo published on Ammoland’s website had an Ammoland logo in the place of a “Tom Vezo / Minden Pictures” watermark, according to the opinion. The media company had received the image from a Arizona Game and Fish Commission press release, editor-in-chief Fred Riehl testified.

The photo’s author Tom Vezo entered into an agreement for licensing of various stock images in March 2003, granting Minden exclusive licensing over the eagle photo, according to the opinion. Under its original terms, the agreement was effective until March 2013, and there were separate amendments adjusting the date.

Minden alleged it discovered that Ammoland was using Vezo’s photograph without a license in January 2020 and it filed a complaint three months later. According to Ammoland, Minden never sent the media company any notice regarding the alleged infringement prior to filing the complaint.

Minden argued its licensing agreement was intended to be renewed in perpetuity, and that it entered a June 2021 amendment to the agreement to clarify that intent. Under the amendment, which was entered after the initial complaint, the agreement would remain in force for a term of one year and should be “automatically renewed in perpetuity for periods for one (1) year each thereafter.”

Ammoland argued the agreement between Minden and Vezo expired in 2013, and the 2021 amendment can’t grant retroactive standing because it was executed afterwards – meaning Minden didn’t own exclusive rights when the complaint was filed.

The court agreed, finding that the language of the initial agreement indicated a set duration and date of termination. The court denied Minden’s motion for summary judgment and granted Ammoland’s cross-motion.

“We’re obviously glad that the court took the time to really examine whether Minden Pictures had a right to bring the lawsuit,” said Oscar Michelen, a partner at Cuomo LLC, which represented Ammoland. “I’m very, very grateful that the court was able to make that determination and dismiss the case against our clients.”

Minden is represented by Robert Terry Parker of the Law Office of R. Terry Parker, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Minden Pictures Inc. v. Ammoland, Inc., D.N.J., No. 3:20-Cv-02276 (D.N.J.), Summary Judgment 6/30/23