Facts

Genevieve Morton, a professional model best known for her work in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, created nude images, taken by professional photographer Derek Riker, and sold them at her website. SpyIRL.com, a content partner of Pornhub.com, tweeted some of the images. Morton asked Twitter.com to remove the images and suspend the accounts. Twitter removed the images but did not immediately remove the associated tweets or suspend the accounts. Morton sued SpyIRL and Twitter.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted causes of action for copyright infringement; violation of FOSTA-SESTA, a law intended to curb sex trafficking; right of publicity; false advertising; false light; defamation; unfair competition and fraud; emotional distress; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff contended that SpyIRL.com used Twitter.com to falsely advertise plaintiff's products, make false and defamatory statements, and infringe plaintiff's copyrighted works while fraudulently using her name, likeness and copyrighted images, without authorization, to drive user traffic as well as to promote and sell pornography featuring child sexual exploitation and nonconsensual nudity obtained from hidden cameras in public places in violation of state and federal law. Due to Twitter's refusal and failure to suspend the @SpyIRL user or delete the tweets, plaintiff's professional reputation and commercial brand had been and continued to be severely damaged, and Twitter continued to profit from the exploitation of plaintiff and defendants' flagrant disregard for the laws of the United States and of California.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and Twitter argued that there was no evidence that plaintiff owned the copyrights in the photographs at issue. More specifically, plaintiff could not establish that the photographs were works made for hire, entitling the works to protection of copyright laws, because plaintiff could not establish that the photographs were commissioned works. First, plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence that she and Riker entered a written work for hire agreement before the photographs were taken. Moreover, neither plaintiff nor Riker could testify that any prior written agreement ever existed because plaintiff testified that she couldn't recall whether she and Riker executed an agreement before the photoshoot. Second, plaintiff could not establish that Riker was her employee when he took the photographs. Plaintiff offered no evidence that any such employment relationship existed, and the facts in the record made clear that Riker was not plaintiff's employee. Rather, the evidence made clear that Riker was a quintessential independent contractor, not plaintiff's employee. Because plaintiff had no evidence to carry her burden of proving that she owned the copyrights in the photographs at issue, plaintiff lacked standing to sue for copyright infringement and had no viable infringement claim.

Result

The court granted Twitter's motion for summary judgment.