Cade Wallman v. Dominic Wieneke d/b/a Warwolf Productions and Ezekiel Moot Richter

Wallman · United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division · March 31, 2026 · No. 4:25-CV-04036-KES

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims arising from the alleged unauthorized use of video footage and the plaintiff’s likeness. The court dismissed the copyright infringement claim without prejudice because the copyright had not been registered or preregistered, dismissed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim with prejudice because no copyright management information was alleged to have been removed or altered, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law likeness claim. The court also denied as moot defendants’ request to consider supplemental authority.

Holdings

  1. A copyright infringement action generally cannot proceed under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) unless the copyright claim has been registered or preregistered, and Wallman's failure to allege either was sufficient to dismiss his copyright infringement claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
  2. A claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) requires copyright management information that was present and was knowingly removed or altered; because Wallman's allegations did not plausibly establish that such information was ever attached to the footage, his DMCA claim failed.
  3. The court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law unauthorized-use-of-likeness claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Wallman's copyright infringement claim stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) despite failing to allege copyright registration or preregistration.
  2. Whether Wallman's DMCA claim stated a claim where the complaint did not allege that copyright management information had been present on the footage before being removed or altered.
  3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law unauthorized-use-of-likeness claim after dismissing the federal claims.
  4. Whether the court should consider defendants' supplemental authority.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (13)

  • Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Cathedral Square Partners Ltd. P'ship v. S.D. Hous. Dev. Auth., 966 F. Supp. 2d 862, 867 (D.S.D. 2013)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296, 300-02 (2019)(followed)
  • Warner Bros. Entm't v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584, 595 (8th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Wright v. Penguin Random House, 783 Fed. App'x 578, 583 (6th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Dowbenko v. Google Inc., 582 Fed. App'x 801, 805 (11th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Bus. Audio Plus, L.L.C. v. Commerce Bank, NA, 2011 WL 250670, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 26, 2011)(followed)
  • Hutchinson Tel. Co. v. Fronteer Directory Co. of Minn., Inc., 770 F.2d 128, 132 (8th Cir. 1985)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…