DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
870 F.3d 978 (2017)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
DRK Photo (plaintiff) was a stock-photo agency that negotiated nonexclusive licensing agreements with photographers, allowing DRK to license and sell the photographers’ photos. DRK reached out to many of its photographers to negotiate new assignment agreements, explaining that the purpose of the agreement was to enable DRK to sue to enforce the copyright of the photographers’ photos. Many photographers executed these agreements, in which the copyright holders agreed to assign legal title to the copyright to DRK for purposes of registering the images and bringing copyright-infringement claims. Even after signing those agreements, DRK retained only a nonexclusive license to market and sell the photographers’ photos, with the photographers retaining full rights to market and sell their photos on their own and through other agents. DRK sued McGraw-Hill Global Education Holders, LLC (McGraw) (defendant) for copyright infringement, asserting that McGraw exceeded the scope of its licenses with DRK by printing more books containing licensed images than DRK had authorized. McGraw moved for summary judgment, arguing that DRK had no standing to sue for copyright infringement because DRK was merely a nonexclusive license holder and not the legal owner of the copyrights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hawkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.