Amy Peterson v. Kelly J. Berggren, Lettered and Lined, LLC, and Stupell Industries, Ltd. Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denies motions to dismiss claims arising from alleged copyright infringement of Amy Peterson’s animal-themed wall art. The court holds that Peterson plausibly alleges direct infringement by Kelly J. Berggren and Lettered and Lined, LLC, as well as vicarious and contributory infringement and breach of contract by Stupell Industries, Ltd. Inc. The court also concludes that the settlement agreement’s takedown provision is ambiguous and that the breach-of-contract claim may proceed.

Holdings

1. Peterson plausibly alleged factual copying because she alleged both a reasonable opportunity for access through wide dissemination and similarities probative of copying.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged that the L&L Defendants' images were created after Peterson's works and therefore could not be treated as prior independent creations at the pleading stage.
3. Peterson plausibly alleged unlawful appropriation because the selection and arrangement of protectable elements in the L&L Defendants' images were substantially similar to her works, and the alleged differences were minor details that could be overlooked by an ordinary observer.
4. Peterson plausibly alleged vicarious copyright infringement because she alleged that Stupell had the right and ability to supervise the L&L Defendants' infringing conduct and had a direct financial interest in that conduct.
5. Peterson plausibly alleged contributory copyright infringement because she alleged that Stupell knew of the L&L Defendants' infringement and materially contributed to it by approving and distributing the images.
6. Peterson plausibly alleged breach of contract because she pleaded the existence of a settlement agreement, its relevant terms, Stupell's breach, and resulting damages; the agreement was ambiguous as to whether its obligations depended on direct copyright infringement.
7. The court had supplemental jurisdiction over Peterson's state-law breach-of-contract claim because it arose from the same operative facts as her federal copyright claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Peterson plausibly alleged that the L&L Defendants factually copied her copyrighted works.
2. Whether Peterson plausibly alleged access, probative similarity, and the absence of prior independent creation.
3. Whether Peterson plausibly alleged unlawful appropriation through substantial similarity between her works and the L&L Defendants' images.
4. Whether Peterson plausibly alleged vicarious and contributory copyright infringement against Stupell.
5. Whether Peterson plausibly alleged breach of the settlement agreement despite ambiguity concerning whether the agreement required direct copyright infringement.
6. Whether the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

dismissed