Overhauser Law Offices LLC: Provided by
Overhauser Law Offices LLC: Provided by
Overhauser Law Offices LLC: Provided by
Provided by:
Overhauser Law Offices
LLC
www.iniplaw.org
www.overhauser.com
RICHARD N. BELL
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLIANCE HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Summary of lawsuit
1.
2000 and the Indianapolis photo was registered with the U.S. Copyright office. In
2016, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant ALLIANCE HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC (Alliance) had published the Indianapolis photo in
advertising which appears on a website owned by Defendant Alliance, even though
the Defendant had no rights or authority to publish the Indianapolis Photo. The
Plaintiff requests damages and injunctive relief against Defendant Alliance for
violations of the U.S. Copyright laws.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This copyright infringement action arises under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. This
Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question), and
28 U.S.C. 1338 (acts of Congress related to copyright).
3.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of their
transacting, doing, and soliciting business in this District, and because a substantial
part of the relevant events occurred in this District and because a substantial part of
the property that is the subject of this action is situated here.
4.
because the named plaintiff Richard N. Bell resides in this district and because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; and/or conduct
business in this district.
PARTIES
5.
located 1001 Wade Ave, Suite 215, RALEIGH, NC, 27605. Alliance created a website with
the domain name of indianapoliscarmelhotel.com and conducts business in this district.
FACTS
7.
downtown Indianapolis skyline from overlooking the canal from St. Clair Avenue.
8.
law.
Indianapolis Photo
9.
Since March 2000, the Plaintiff has either published or licensed for publication
all copies of the Indianapolis Photo in compliance with the copyright laws and has
remained the sole owner of the copyright.
10.
Indianapolis Photo was first published on the World Wide Web on August 29,
The Indianapolis Photo was registered on August 4, 2011 with the United
Plaintiff and others authorized by the Plaintiff have used the Indianapolis
Photo in advertising to such an extent that the Indianapolis Photo is identified by the
public as being created by the Plaintiff.
13.
Plaintiff and others authorized by the Plaintiff have used the Indianapolis
COUNT I
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
14.
Defendant is liable to Plaintiff because it had the right and ability to control
Upon information and belief, the Defendant Alliance downloaded or took the
Indianapolis Photo from the internet without permission from the owner, Richard
N. Bell and copied on to a webserver controlled by the Defendant.
18.
In April 2016, the Plaintiff discovered through the computer program Google
19.
During the year 2016, the website of Defendant Alliance published the
Indianapolis Photo for its commercial use without paying for said use and without
obtaining the necessary authorization from the Plaintiff, the copyright owner.
20.
While the Defendant will know the exact date of first publication, based upon
the Plaintiffs investigation, during the year 2016, Defendant began publishing the
Indianapolis Photo and used the Indianapolis Photo for their commercial use
without paying for said use and without obtaining the necessary authorization from
the Plaintiff.
21.
The Defendant knew that they did not own Indianapolis Photo and knew the
Defendant had not obtained the rights to publish the Indianapolis Photo, but
recklessly and falsely represented to the world otherwise.
22.
Defendant Alliance has not paid anyone for the right to publish the
Indianapolis Photo, but instead fraudulently declared that the Defendant owned the
copyrights to the Indianapolis Photo.
23.
24.
Defendant has not agreed be enjoined from using the Indianapolis Photo.
25.
connection with its publication of the Indianapolis Photo, and that Defendants
publication of the Indianapolis Photo failed to designate the source of the stolen
Indianapolis Photo or otherwise confer credit to the owner and thereby such conduct
has disparaged the Plaintiff thus causing irreparable damage.
26.
There is a risk of infringing conduct which has caused and will likely cause
Indianapolis Photo initiated by each third party Internet User regardless of whether
Defendant was aware that the third party was creating the downloaded copy.
30.
Defendant is liable for all profits resulting from each downloaded copy of the
31.
Defendant knew that any use of the Indianapolis Photo would infringe copyrights
Plaintiff owns.
32.
Plaintiff has complied in all respects with 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and
secured the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the copyrights of the abovereferenced works.
33.
Plaintiff has been and still is the sole proprietor of all rights, title, and
result of their wrongful conduct, Defendant Alliance has realized and continues to
realize profits and other benefits rightfully belonging to Plaintiff. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seek an award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 and 505.
37.
determination, and, unless restrained, will cause further irreparable injury, leaving
the Plaintiff with no adequate remedy at law.
38.
your copyrighted materials that, if granted, would require that the Indianapolis
Photo not be available on indianapoliscarmelhotel.com, which would thereby make it
impossible for third party Internet users to download copies of the Indianapolis Photo
from said webpage.
39.
engaging in, the acts complained of with oppression, fraud, and malice (Acts) and
in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the
maximum statutory damages allowable.
40.
Examples of these willfully and deliberately Acts, include but not limited to
the following:
a. Defendant downloaded or took the Indianapolis Photo from the internet
and included said photo on the Defendants website.
b. Defendant failed to designate the source of the stolen Indianapolis Photo
or otherwise confer credit to the owner.
c. Defendant recklessly, willfully and falsely asserted that the Defendant
owned the copyrights of all content, images and photos contained in the
Defendants website including Indianapolis Photo.
d. Defendant knew that it did not own Indianapolis Photo and knew the
Defendant had not obtained the rights to publish the Indianapolis
Photo, but deliberately and falsely represented to the world otherwise.
e. Defendant has not paid anyone for the right to use Indianapolis Photo,
but instead fraudulently declared that the Defendant owned the
copyrights to the Indianapolis Photo.
41.
As a consequence of this dispute between the parties as to the rights, title, and
interest in the copyrighted articles described above, and pursuant to the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, Plaintiff also seek a
resolution of this ongoing controversy by a declaration of this Court as to the rights
of the respective parties in this matter.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Alliance as follows:
a. Declaring that Defendants unauthorized conduct violates Plaintiffs
rights under common law and the Federal Copyright Act;
b. Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendant Alliance, their
members,
officers,
directors,
agents,
servants,
employees,
representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns, and
all others in active concert or participation with them from copying and
republishing any of Plaintiffs copyrighted articles or copyrighted
material without consent or otherwise infringing Plaintiffs copyrights
or other rights in any manner;
c. Enjoin Defendant from republishing any of your copyrighted materials
that, if granted, would require that the Indianapolis Photo not be
available on indianapoliscarmelhotel.com which would thereby make it
Respectfully Submitted:
Date: May 9, 2016
10
Exhibit A
11