吉吉哈蒂打贏了於ig上傳照片侵害著作權之訴訟
以下為美國法院判決書,援引1頁介紹給大家參考。
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
XCLUSIVE-LEE, INC.,Plaintiff,- against -JELENA NOURA “GIGI” HADID,Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
19-CV-520 (PKC) (CLP)PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff Xclusive-Lee, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid (“Defendant”). Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which the Court grants for the reasons set forth below.
原告Xclusive-Lee,Inc.對被告Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid於2019年1月28日提起本件訴訟。
被告答辯聲明為駁回原告之訴,本院當庭予以准許,茲敘明理由如下:
BACKGROUND事實
Defendant is an internationally famous supermodel. (Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. 1, ¶ 2.)
She personally maintains an Instagram account, which had more than 43.7 million followers
被告為國際知名之超模,其個人擁有IG帳號,有超過4千3百7拾萬人跟追。
Gigi Hadid Beats Instagram Post Copyright Lawsuit
吉吉哈蒂打贏了於ig上傳照片侵害著作權之訴訟
JULY 18, 2019
Gigi Hadid has defeated a lawsuit filed against her for posting a paparazzi photo of herself on Instagram.
Hadid於其ig上傳一張狗仔隊所攝含有Hadid的照片而被訴侵害著作權,最終獲得勝訴。
Xclusive-Lee in January sued Hadid for copyright infringement, claiming she infringed its rights by posting a photo of herself on Instagram in October without licensing it.
U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen on Thursday dismissed the complaint, finding Xclusive failed to obtain copyright registration of the work before filing the lawsuit — a requirement the U.S. Supreme Court established in a decision earlier this year. Chen declined to allow Xclusive to refile the complaint if it does receive registration, citing an April decision in New York federal court that found such a decision would “make a meaningless formality” out of the registration requirement.
美國紐約東區地方法院法官Pamela Chen星期四駁回該訴,理由係Xclusive公司在起訴前,就其所訴作品未取得著作權登記,美國聯邦最高法院在今年初於判決中確立之要件。即便其後Xclusive取得著作權登記,Pamela Chen法官亦會駁回其之再起訴。
Hadid’s attorney John Quinn sent The Hollywood Reporter a statement following the decision: “We are pleased that the Court granted our motion to dismiss this meritless case. The Court’s decision recognized this case for what it was — an effort to extract a settlement from Ms. Hadid with little regard for the basic requirements of copyright law.”