The karmin puzzles copyright lawsuit, in which a photographer claims a puzzle maker lifted his pictures, will go forward. A federal judge in New York has allowed most of the case to proceed, and the puzzle company’s early defenses have not yet been tested.
Landscape and nature photographer Elliot McGucken can pursue copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims against Canadian puzzle manufacturer Karmin International. The DMCA is a U.S. federal law that governs copyright protections in the digital environment.
What McGucken alleges
McGucken says Karmin reproduced five of his photographs on puzzles in its “Nature’s Beauty” series, a central point in the case. The company allegedly placed its own copyright notices on the finished products. The puzzles were sold across the United States, including in New York.
For another look at how wildlife photography is documented and valued, see Joel Sartore’s Photo Ark animal portrait project, a vast archive of individual animal portraits.
The photos first appeared on McGucken’s website and Flickr profile, alongside his name, titles and copyright notices. According to a report by Vital Law on the case, he says the puzzle packaging stated the images had been licensed from the stock photography platform Shutterstock. Yet the same packaging carried a Karmin International copyright notice followed by “All Rights Reserved.”
McGucken argues that this labeling was misleading. The notices implied that Karmin owned rights to photographs he took. He also alleges the companies stripped identifying and copyright information from his originals before reproducing them. Shutterstock reportedly notified Karmin that the licenses were invalid, and McGucken says sales and display of the images continued afterward.
Karmin’s response and the ruling
Karmin asked the court to dismiss several of the claims. The company’s lawyers portray McGucken as a serial litigator seeking a windfall, according to Bloomberg Law’s coverage of the filing. Karmin also sells some of its puzzles under the Ki Puzzles brand.
On November 3, a judge ruled that McGucken had plausibly alleged most of his copyright claims. U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York found that the photographer could move forward on the bulk of his case. Bloomberg Law reported that the judge treated most of Karmin’s defenses as premature at this stage.
Claims that survive the karmin puzzles copyright lawsuit
Koeltl found that McGucken had provided enough grounds to support his allegations of false copyright notices on the packaging. He also found the allegations of removed identifying information sufficient to proceed.
The judge also allowed a claim of vicarious copyright infringement to continue within the broader puzzle copyright infringement dispute. Under that theory, a company can be held responsible for another party’s infringement if it has the ability to supervise the activity and benefits financially from it. McGucken contends that Karmin and its marketing affiliate, Playview, produced and marketed the puzzles together and both profited from sales.
Disputes over who controls photographs also play out across the industry, as seen when Photo Agencies Stage Unified Blackout Over Access Ban shows photographers acting together over image rights.
The ruling does not decide who is right. It only clears the way for the case to continue. Whether the notices were false, and whether the companies knew the licenses had lapsed, will determine the outcome.
Sources & Links
Frequently asked questions
What is the Karmin puzzles copyright lawsuit about?
Photographer Elliot McGucken claims Karmin International reproduced five of his nature photographs on puzzles in its “Nature’s Beauty” series. He alleges the company placed its own copyright notices on the finished products and removed identifying information from his originals.
Which claims in the Karmin lawsuit can proceed after the ruling?
On November 3, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl ruled that McGucken plausibly alleged most of his copyright claims. The judge allowed the claims over false copyright notices, removed identifying information, and vicarious copyright infringement to continue.
What does vicarious copyright infringement mean in this case?
Under this theory, a company can be held responsible for another party’s infringement if it has the ability to supervise the activity and benefits financially from it. McGucken contends that Karmin and its marketing affiliate, Playview, produced and marketed the puzzles together and both profited from sales.
Did the court decide who is right in the Karmin lawsuit?
No, the ruling does not decide who is right in the dispute. It only allows the case to continue, and whether the copyright notices were false and whether the companies knew the licenses had lapsed will determine the outcome.
More in
Photography
All Photography
More like this
Copyright Laws Face Transformation as AI-Generated Characters Enter Legal Battle
Tim Klein Creates Surreal Jigsaw Art by Fusing Trains, Pharaohs, and Chariots
Nikon's Legal Defeat Opens Potential Pathways for Canon RF Mount Challenge in China
Al Satterwhite Seeks $150,000 After Sony Posted His 1974 Wonder Photo on Instagram
