one of the more recent strategies in suing complying with UFC as well as other battle sports piracy declares in the us are not only lawsuits seeking damages for violations of the communications Act however likewise for Copyright infringement. Both can draw in steep damages with reasons just recently published demonstrating this pursuant to the Copyright Act.

In the recent situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc v. Dupoux) the Plaintiff, who contractually secured industrial licencing rights for different battle sports pay per view programs, sued different defendants for showing a pay per view without buying the industrial sub licencing right enabling them to do so. a few of the celebrations settled while others failed to respond. In protecting default judgement for $90,000 in damages against the defaulting celebrations the Court noted that they were liable for copyright infringement in not only showing the works however likewise marketing their screen of the programs on their social media. In agreeing to this evaluation of damages district judge Beth Bloom provided the complying with reasons:

Plaintiff has elected to recuperate an award of statutory damages pursuant to § 504(c) for its copyright infringement claims. Such an award of statutory damages is appropriate since statutory damages may be elected whether or not there is adequate evidence of the actual damages experienced by Plaintiff or of the revenues reaped by Dupoux as well as F&L. Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir. 1984). Moreover, the allegations in the Complaint, which are taken as true, establish that Dupoux as well as F&L infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted material for the function of deriving the benefit of the value of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in order to drive patrons to their establishment for economic gain. As such, § 504(c)(1) permits an award of statutory damages in the sum of not less than $750.00 as well as not more than $30,000.00 per copyrighted work. Further, if the Court discovers that Dupoux as well as F&L’s copyright infringement was willful, “the court in its discretion may boost the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.00.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Further, understanding as well as willfulness of the infringement requirement not be proven directly however may be inferred from a defendant’s conduct.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Phillips, No. 19-21723-CIV, 2020 WL 3404964, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2020) (citing Island software application & Comput. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 264 (2d Cir. 2005) (“a plaintiff can still prove willfulness by proffering circumstantial evidence that provides increase to an inference of willful conduct”)).

In addition to its well-pled factual allegations of copyright infringement, Plaintiff has likewise submitted documentation to support its assertion of willfulness or deliberate indifference. See ECF No. [1]; see also ECF Nos. [15-2] — [15-14]. These exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff’s movement suggest that Dupoux as well as F&L’s infringement was willful, as evidenced by the advertisement as well as promotion of the event broadcasting Plaintiff’s copyrighted programming on different social network platforms as well as the subsequent exhibition of the event. As a result, Plaintiff seeks a overall statutory damage award of $90,000.00 against Dupoux as well as F&L jointly Camiseta Olympique Lyonnais as well as severally,[2] which represents approximately three times the amount of the licensing charges that it would have been owed, if not for the willful copyright infringement

The Court discovers that this award is adequate to deter Dupoux as well as F&L as well as others from continuing to infringe upon Plaintiff’s copyrights, as well as to compensate Plaintiff for the infringement. See economical Aerial Photography, Inc. v. villa Valentina Realty LLC, No. 17-81307-CIV, 2018 WL 8129826, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2018) (“Specifically, when an infringing celebration does not provide costs saved as well as revenues reaped by the infringing Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Ecuador party, the court will instead only look to the actual damages as well as Camiseta Aston Villa FC willful conduct as well as award an amount of two to three times actual damages to completely compensate Plaintiff as well as adequately deter future conduct like that of the Defendant.”). Further, courts “have acknowledged that awards of three times the licensing charge for every work infringed is appropriate, especially where, as here, the infringement resulted from a deliberate indifference toward copyright laws.” Phillips, 2020 WL 3404964, at *3 (citing Broad. Music, Inc. v. Ent. Complex, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1296 (N.D. Ala. 2002) (awarding “approximately three times the amount of licensing charges that Defendants would have owed to Plaintiffs, which courts have generally upheld as an appropriate permission to ensure that the expense of violatingnull