to foreign copyrighted works posted on the Internet, as well as
1
methods of service under the Hague Convention. Defendants havemoved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under the United StatesCopyright Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, defendantErwan Leygues has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against himfor lack of personal jurisdiction, and both individual defendantshave moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for improper service. Forthe reasons expressed below, all of defendants’ motions will bedenied.
BACKGROUND
2
Plaintiff, Håkan Mogerg, is a professional photographer livingin Sweden. In 1993, he created a series of photographs of a woman,titled “Urban Gregorian I-IX.” Plaintiff is the owner andexclusive copyright holder of these photographs. The photographswere first published in 2004 on a German website, blaugallery.com,which is an online art shop that offers copies of the works forThe two authorities governing copyrights implicated here--
1
the United States Copyright Act and the Berne Convention--werelargely drafted and enacted prior to the widespread use of theInternet. As discussed below, the term “publication” isdispositive of defendants’ motion, but that term has not beenredefined since the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect.Further, as also discussed below, the Berne Convention, which isan international copyright treaty, was originally adopted in1886, and the most recent version was adopted in 1971, with theUnited States acceding to the union in 1988.Facts relevant to defendants’ motion to dismiss are
2
obtained from plaintiff’s complaint, as is required by FederalCivil Procedure Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (5). Other backgrounddetails are gathered from the parties’ briefing.
2
Leave a Comment