A federal judge from the Eastern District of Kentucky has ruled for the University of Kentucky (UK) and other defendants, including Athletic Director Mitch Barnhart, in a case in which they were sued by a professional photographer for copyright infringement.
Factoring heavily in the decision to grant the motion for UK, the University Athletics Committee of the University of Kentucky Board Of Trustees and the individual defendants in their official capacities (Barnhart and university Vice President Eric N. Monday) was the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Second, to the extent that Barnhart and Monday are sued in their individual capacities, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to connect them personally to any alleged copyright infringement.
Plaintiff David Coyle is a professional photographer in Lexington, Kentucky, who has taken photographs for UK and the University of Kentucky Athletics Association since 1988. He alleged in his complaint that between 1988 and 2010 he entered into a series of varying contracts to photograph the university’s varsity intercollegiate athletics teams. Although the terms of these contracts varied, Coyle’s position was that he retained ownership of the copyrights to all the images he produced.
According to Coyle, the university defendants engaged in “a series of strategic partnerships” through which they used Coyle’s photographs for various commercial activities. Because Coyle claimed he retained ownership of the copyrights, he alleged that such usage by the university defendants and other private defendants constituted a violation of his exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106. He sought a declaratory judgment that he is the owner of the copyrights in question, damages for copyright infringement, and injunctive relief.
The defendants moved to dismiss.
Addressing their sovereign immunity argument first, the court reviewed the plaintiff’s argument that the copyright claims “are not barred against the university defendants because Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity for copyright claims when it passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA), Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (Nov. 15 1990).
The court agreed that Congress’s “intent to abrogate is so clear (that) the first prong of the test is satisfied.”
Thereafter, however, the plaintiff’s argument failed because CRCA was passed pursuant to the Copyright Clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and Congress cannot abrogate sovereign immunity under its Article I powers. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that “Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I powers.” Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S 627, 636 (1999). In Florida Prepaid, the court found that Congress’s attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the Patent Remedy Act could not be justified under either the Commerce Clause or the Patent Clause, since both arose under Article I.
Thus, the CRCA was invalid to the extent that it abrogated sovereign immunity under the Copyright Clause, which is also part of Article I, according to the court.
Turning to the claim against the men in their individual capacities, “Coyle does not allege any actions by Barnhart and Monday that would render them liable for copyright infringement,” wrote the court. “Rather, he cites to the general duties that accompany their respective offices to draw an inference that they might have, at the very least, ‘approved of, condoned or acquiesced in’ the infringing activities. But this is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Even taken as true, Coyle’s allegations do not identify any particular wrongdoing by Barnhart and Monday.”
David Coyle v. University Of Kentucky, et al.; E.D. Ky.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-369-KKC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27824; 3/4/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) David A. Cohen, Stephen Garrett Amato, W. Chapman Hopkins, LEAD ATTORNEYS, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC – Lexington, Lexington, KY. (for defendant University of Kentucky, University Athletics Committee of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, as successor in interest to the, – University of Kentucky Athletics Association) Eric N. Monday, individually, Mitchell S. Barnhart, individually, Defendants: Stephen Lewis Barker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Joshua Michael Salsburey, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney PLLC, Lexington, KY; William Eugene Thro, LEAD ATTORNEY, University of Kentucky, Office of Legal Counsel, Lexington, KY.
