直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Request for Fees and Costs by Haiti Earthquake Photojournalist Denied by SDNY

August 03, 2015

Authored and Edited by Margaret A. Esquenet; Danielle Wright Bulger

Despite receiving a 1.2 million dollar verdict in a copyright infringement suit involving photos taken after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, additional requests by the prevailing-litigant photographer have not fared as well. The District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied photographer Daniel Morel’s request that Agence France Presse (“AFP”) and Getty Images, the counterclaim defendants, pay his costs and attorneys’ fees. The court also fixed the sum of the lien charged by Morel’s former counsel. See Agence France Presse v. Morel, No. 10-cv-2730 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2015).

According to the court, Morel “fought a fair fight and won” upwards of a million dollars. Although Section 505 of the Copyright Act gives the court discretion to allow for the recovery of costs, and award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, the court held that an award under Section 505 would not further the purposes of the Copyright Act in this case. As the Supreme Court previously held in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., a number of factors help in making an attorneys’ fees determination, including whether a complaint was frivolous, a party’s motivation in asserting a claim, objective unreasonableness of a claim, and the expense of litigation. 510 U.S. 517, 534.

Although Morel alleged the counterclaim defendants suggested “objectively unreasonable defenses,” like claiming their usage was protected by Twitter’s terms of service, and that Getty qualifies as an internet service provider, due to the complexity of legal issues social media presents, the court noted AFP and Getty’s positions were objectively reasonable. “The advent of social media, and the internet generally poses a myriad of issues for both copyright holders and those seeking to license or exploit their work. The federal courts have recognized that ‘the whole area of social media presents thorny and novel issues with which courts are only now coming to grips.”  As such, the court found AFP and Getty’s litigation positions were not frivolous and issues involving the counterclaim defendants’ motivations were unsupported.

Morel successfully litigated his copyright claims at trial.  However, although the Copyright Acts allows for fee shifting, a prevailing party may nonetheless fail recover fees and costs incurred during litigation.

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Articles

Who Is a “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up the Video Privacy Protection Act

October 12, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Articles

U.S. and European Automotive Updates: Installment 2

October 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP