Michael Gaffney vs. Muhammad Ali Enterprises Llc Et Al

Case Background

On May 21, 20119, Plaintiff Michael Gaffney filed a Copyright Infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, New York Southern (Foley Square)[Case number: 1:18cv8770]. This case was assigned to Judge George B. Daniels and referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.

Cause

Photographer Michael Gaffney filed a lawsuit against Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC (MAE), Authentic Brands Group (ABG), and other defendants, accusing them of willfully infringing on his copyright-protected photographs of Muhammad Ali. As Ali’s photographer from 1977 to 1978, Gaffney captured thousands of iconic images showcasing the legendary boxer’s career and personality. These photographs held immense historical and commercial value, with rights solely belonging to Gaffney.

Despite the expiration of a licensing agreement in 2015, MAE and ABG reproduced, distributed, and publicly displayed these photographs without Gaffney’s authorization. The defendants used the images extensively on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Furthermore, they licensed these photographs to third parties, such as TAG Heuer, for advertising campaigns and product promotions, including the promotion of a limited-edition Muhammad Ali watch. The defendants removed Gaffney’s copyright management information (CMI) from the photographs and falsely replaced it with their own branding. These actions constituted clear violations of intellectual property rights and copyright laws, as outlined in the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Injuries

The defendants’ actions caused substantial harm to Michael Gaffney’s intellectual property rights, reputation, and livelihood. Gaffney’s works, widely recognized for their artistic and cultural significance, were used without proper attribution or compensation. The removal of Gaffney’s copyright management information (CMI) and its replacement with false CMI misled consumers, clients, and licensing partners into believing the defendants owned or controlled the rights to the photographs. This resulted in a loss of licensing opportunities, diminished marketability of his work, and reputational harm.

Additionally, the unauthorized use of the photographs on social media platforms, where they were shared, liked, and retweeted by millions, exacerbated the damage. These platforms generated massive engagement for the defendants’ brands, effectively depriving Gaffney of rightful earnings and licensing opportunities. The public perception of the photographs shifted away from their true creator, diminishing Gaffney’s ability to leverage his portfolio for future projects or exhibitions.

Damages

The unauthorized distribution of the Muhammad Ali photographs inflicted significant financial and professional losses on Michael Gaffney. Further, the defendants’ use of the photographs for commercial purposes, including advertising and brand promotion, generated substantial profits for their businesses. However, they did so without compensating the rightful owner. Social media posts featuring the photographs amassed millions of likes, shares, and retweets. This further amplified the reach of the infringing content and drove consumer traffic to the defendants’ platforms and merchandise.

The defendants also licensed the photographs to third parties, including TAG Heuer. This resulted in additional commercial benefits for which Gaffney received no compensation. The unauthorized reproduction and display of these photographs constituted willful copyright infringement. As a result, Gaffney is entitled to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. The total damages included lost profits, licensing fees, and the devaluation of the photographs’ market value due to their unauthorized exposure.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Michael Gaffney
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Jack Thomas Spinella | Jason Linger | Lawrence Milton Hadley | Robert Allen | Thomas Patrick Burke, Jr.
  • Defendant(s): Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company| Authentic Brands Group LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company | LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., doing business as Tag Heuer
    • Counsel for Defendants: Jessica Strom Rutherford | Alexander Rudolf Malbin | Edmund John Ferdinand, III | John F. Olsen | Kathleen Moore | Kevin A. Fritz | Robert Phillip Feinland

Claims

Michael Gaffney asserted several legal claims against the defendants, including direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and violations of the DMCA. He demonstrated that the defendants knowingly used his photographs without permission and falsified copyright information to conceal their unauthorized actions. Gaffney claimed that the defendants’ actions were deliberate, egregious, and commercially motivated, seeking to exploit his creative works for financial gain.

The lawsuit sought multiple remedies, including injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized use of his works. Gaffney requested statutory damages for each instance of infringement, as allowed under the Copyright Act, in addition to compensation for harm caused by the removal and falsification of CMI. He also sought recovery of attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and other expenses incurred in pursuing justice. By taking legal action, Gaffney aimed to protect his rights as a creator, highlight the importance of intellectual property protection, and hold the defendants accountable for their unlawful conduct.

Defense

The defense asserted several arguments in response to the allegations in Michael Gaffney’s lawsuit, denying liability for copyright infringement and related claims. The defendants, Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC (MAE) and Authentic Brands Group LLC (ABG), acknowledged the existence of a licensing agreement with Gaffney. However, they contended that their actions did not constitute violations of his copyright or intellectual property rights. They argued that their use of the photographs fell within the scope of the original agreement. The agreement, they claimed, included licenses for marketing and promotional purposes across various media.

The defense denied that Gaffney’s copyright management information (CMI) was removed or altered without authorization. They also challenged the validity of his claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Furthermore, they argued that Gaffney lacked valid U.S. copyright registrations for certain works. The defendants stated that any damages claimed were speculative, uncertain, or caused by third parties beyond their control.

Additionally, the defense invoked several affirmative defenses. These included the expiration of the statute of limitations, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and unclean hands. They contended that Gaffney’s alleged damages were disproportionate and speculative. The defendants argued that he failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief. They also maintained that if any damages occurred, they were not solely responsible. Other parties’ actions may have contributed to the alleged harm. Ultimately, MAE and ABG requested the court to dismiss the claims with prejudice. They also sought to deny Gaffney any relief and to be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for defending against the lawsuit.

Jury Verdict

On September 23, 2024, the jury awarded actual damages of $362,665.00 to the Plaintiff as fair compensation for injuries suffered. Additionally, they awarded $750,000.00 in infringement profits from the Defendants that were not included in the actual damages. The jury found that the Defendants acted willfully when they engaged in acts that infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright with regard to photos Ali-001, Ali-002, Ali-004, Ali-005, Ali-006, Ali-007, Ali-010, Ali-012, Ali-015, Ali-016, and Ali-017. Based on this finding, the jury awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,650,000.00 to the Plaintiff. The total damages awarded to the Plaintiff amounted to $2,762,665.00, which represented the sum of actual damages, infringement profits, and statutory damages in a Copyright lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Documents Available for Purchase upon Request