Case Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 Of 7 Page ID KING, HOLMES, PATERNO SORIANO, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ, STATE BAR NO. 77012 SETH MILLER, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 175130 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506 TELEPHONE: 310 282-8989 FACSIMILE: 310 282-8903 Attorne for Plaintiff SISYPHU TOURI G, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION SISYPHUS TOURING, INC., CASE NO. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL HHi?n MNH VS. TMZ PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation; TMZ.com, a ?ctional entit of unknown form; EHM PRODUCTI NS, INC., a California co oration; WARNER BROS. ERTAINIVIENT, INC., a Delaware I?tr?tr?t 17 corporation; and DOES 1?10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 For its Complaint, Plaintiff Sisyphus Touring, Inc. (?Plaintiff?) alleges as 21 follows: 22 THE NATURE OF THIS ACTION 23 1. Plaintiff owns the copyright in certain video footage (the ?Footage?) 24 ?lmed at the home studio Of Jared Leto on or about September 8, 2015 that includes, inter alia, footage of Mr. Leto and his engineer listening to music in his home 0\ studio. The Footage has never been publicly released or published by Plaintiff and is working material that is confidential, private, and was not intended for public 00 exhibition. On information and belief, an unauthorized or stolen copy of the 3483.062/971260.4 Case KING, HOLMES. PATERNO SORIANO, LLP Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 7 Page ID Footage was obtained through illicit means by a former videographer who had been retained by Plaintiff (the ?Videographer?). Without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff or Mr. Leto, the Videographer delivered the Footage to TMZ for viewing and negotiated for a payment of Two Thousand Dollars TMZ requested that Videographer sign a document con?rming he had the legal right to deliver the Footage. Videographer refused to sign such an acknowledgment. Prior to any broadcast of the Footage, Plaintiff had advised Defendants that the Footage was stolen, and that Defendants were not authorized to disseminate, display, or publish the Footage on the website TMZ.com or at all. Despite prior notice from Plaintiff that the Footage was stolen and despite Videographer?s refusal to acknowledge he had the rights to deliver the Footage, TMZ rushed to publish the Footage at 1:00 am. on December 7, 2015. Fifteen minutes after TMZ published the Footage they were informed by the Videographer of the following: ?do not post the footagenot have permission.? Even after receiving this written notice, TMZ continued to disseminate the Footage and still is disseminating the Footage. Plaintiff sues Defendants herein for damages and injunctive relief arising out of their willful infringement of copyright. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. based on acts of copyright infringement committed in the United States. This Court has subject matter question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ??1331 and 1338. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), and 1400(a) because Defendants, and each of them, are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and a substantial part of the events, acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this District. 3483 .062/97 1 260.4 Case Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 7 Page ID THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants TMZ Productions, Inc., and EHM Productions, Inc., are California corporations conducting business in the City of Los Angeles, State of California, which operate and do business as TMZ, and that the gossip website Defendant ?TMZ.com? is, and at all times relevant hereto, was, an entity of unknown type and origin that is, and at all times relevant hereto was, doing business in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. Defendants TMZ Productions, Inc., EHM Productions, Inc., and TMZ.com are collectively referred to as 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 03 Defendant Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (?Warner?) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New (II York, New York conducting business in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. i?ti?t 7. Plaintiff is presently unaware of the true names and capacities of Q0 Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of such fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the U) occurrences, acts and omissions alleged herein and that Plaintiff?s damages were .lk proximately caused by their conduct. Hereinafter, all Defendants including Doe Defendants will sometimes be referred to collectively as ?Defendants.? For ON convenience, each reference to a named Defendant herein shall also refer to the Doe Defendants, and each of them. 00 KING, HOLMES. PATERNO SORIANO. LLP 3483.062/971260.4 3 Case KJNG, HOLMES. PATERNO LLP A: Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 7 Page ID 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all material times Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, partners, joint venturers, co-conspirators, owners, principals, and employers of the remaining Defendants, and each of them, are, and at all times herein mentioned were, acting within the course and scope of that agency, employment, partnership, conspiracy, ownership or joint venture. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the acts and conduct alleged herein were known to, and authorized or rati?ed by, the of?cers, directors, and managing agents of Defendant corporations or business entities, and each of them. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 9. Plaintiff owns the Footage, which was shot at the home studio of Jared Leto and is private, con?dential and not meant to be publicly released. Plaintiff ?led an application with the United States Copyright Of?ce to register a federal copyright in the Footage prior to the ?ling of this action. 10. website at under the headline that partially reads ?Jared Leto SCREW . . . 1! But I?d Love One of Her Hits.? 11. On December 7, 2015, TMZ broadcast the copy of the Footage on its On information and belief, TMZ obtained its c0py of the Footage from unknown person(s) who stole or otherwise obtained an unauthorized copy of the Footage from Plaintiff. Before TMZ published the Footage on its website, Plaintiff had advised Defendants that Plaintiff did not authorize Defendants to use, exploit, or publish the Footage on TMZ.com, or at all, that any copy of the Footage delivered to TMZ must have been stolen from Plaintiff or Mr. Leto?s home and was not authorized for distribution or exploitation, and that Defendants would infringe Plaintiff? copyright in the Footage by distributing same on TMZ.com. 12. The dissemination of the Footage on TMZ is and was a willful infringement of Plaintiffs copyright and has caused Plaintiff signi?cant harm. 3483.062/9712604 4 Case 1 KING. HOLMES. PATERNO SORIANO, LLP Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 5 of 7 Page ID FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF For Copyright Infringement [17 U.S.C. ?101 et seq.] (Against All Defendants) 13. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, adopts and incorporates each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. I 14. Plaintiff is the sole owner of all right, title and interest in the c0pyright to the Footage. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, have commercially used, exploited, attempted to license or sell and disseminated the copyrighted Footage, including on the website TMZ.com. 16. Defendants? commercial use, exploitation, attempts to license or sell and dissemination of the copyrighted materials is unauthorized. Defendants? unauthorized commercial use, exploitation, licensing, attempts to license or sell and dissemination of the Footage constitutes an infringement of Plaintiffs copyright. 17. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? infringing activities, Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain substantial injury, including damage to its and Mr. Leto?s business, reputation and goodwill in an amount not yet known but to be determined according to proof at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of the infringement by Defendants, they have unlawfully and wrongfully derived income and pro?ts from their infringing acts. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants had prior knowledge of Plaintiff? rights and, therefore, Defendants? infringing activities are willful and wanton. 19. As a result of their actions, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. ?501. Plaintiff suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damage to its professional reputation and goodwill, as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained, but which will be determined according to 3483.062/971260.4 5 Case Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 6 of 7 Page ID proof. In addition to Plaintiff?s actual damages, Plaintiff is entitled to receive the pro?ts made by Defendants from their wrongful acts, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. ?504. In the alternative, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. ?504(c). These statutory damages should be enhanced by 17 U.S.C. ?504(c)(2) because of Defendants? willful copyright infringement. Plaintiff is also entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from using, exploiting, or disseminating the Footage. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. That Defendants have infringed Plaintiff COpyright in the Footage under 17 U.S.C. Section 501 et seq, and that the infringement by Defendants, and, each of them, was willful; 2. For the damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the infringement complained of herein, as well as disgorgement of any pro?ts of Defendants attributable to their infringement, including the value of all gains, pro?ts, \l advantages, bene?ts, and consideration derived by Defendants from and as a result of their infringement of Plaintiff? 5 copyright in the Footage; 3. In the alternative, if Plaintiff so elects, in lieu of recovery of its actual damages and Defendants? pro?ts, for a 17 U.S.C. Section 504(0) award of statutory damages against Defendants, or any of them, for all copyright infringements (willful or otherwise) involved in this action as to each work in question; DJ 4. That Defendants, and each of them, and each of their respective .lk of?cers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, be enjoined preliminarily, during the pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from infringing the copyright in Footage in any manner and from x] distributing, selling, advertising, broadcasting, publishing or communicating, in the GO KING, HOLMES, PATERNO LLP 3483.062/971260.4 6 Case Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 7 of 7 Page ID 1 United States or elsewhere, any materials that contain or refer to all or any part of 2 the Footage; 3 5. That the Court enters an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections 503 and 4 509 mandating the impounding of all infringing copies of the Footage and any other 5 materials prepared by Defendants containing any copies of the Footage or any 6 portions thereof; 7 6. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and 8 7. For such other and further relief in favor of Plaintiff as the Court deems 9 just and proper. 10 11 DATED: December 8, 2015 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO 12 SORIANOSETH MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiff SISYPHUS TOURING, 17 INC. 18 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 Plaintiff demands atrial by jury on all issues so triable. 21 DATED: December 8, 2015 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO SORIANOHOWARD ING SETH MILL 26 Attorneys for Plaintiff SISYPHUS TOURING, 27 INC. 28 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO SORIANO, LLP 3483.062/9712604 7