Three Cases Come to an End
Davidson v. Howard University
On July 15, 2024, we reported on a case involving Howard University (the "University") and professional photographer Cameron Davidson ("Davidson"), concerning the University’s alleged use of one of Davidson’s photographs “…to promote [the University’s] sales of goods and services,” as stated in Davidson’s Complaint (4).
Following the Complaint, the University filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to File its Responsive Pleading, stating that additional time was necessary to adequately respond to the allegations, which would otherwise be due within 21 days under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The University further noted that it had mutually agreed with Davidson to request an extension, asking the court to move the deadline from July 22, 2024, to August 30, 2024.
The University alleged in a second Motion for an extension that both parties were engaged in discussions “…to bring closure to [the] matter…” and expressed hope that they would reach a dismissal by the new deadline (5).
A Notice of Settlement was finally filed by Davidson on October 22, 2024, and Davidson also filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on November 15th. The court then issued an Order of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) on November 18th, formally ending nearly a year of litigation.
This case illustrates that, even in copyright disputes where both parties seem likely to settle, the resolution process can easily take a year or more, with only a few exceptions resolving sooner and many cases lasting much longer.
Michael Grecco v. USC
Another short-lived case was one we reported on on November 4th, 2024, involving professional photographer Michael Grecco (“Grecco” or “Plaintiff”), who sued the University of Southern California (“USC”) for allegedly using one of his copyrighted photographs—featuring a USC student—on one of the university’s website pages. The case was resolved quickly, settling approximately one month after it was filed, which is considered a swift resolution in copyright litigation.
Unfortunately, the reasons behind the settlement remain unclear, for instance, whether one party determined that continuing the case would not be in their favor. What is known is that Grecco agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorney’s fees, officially concluding the matter with a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed on November 21st, 2024.
Elsammak v. ATP Flight Academy
Another case that has recently come to an end is Elsammak v. ATP Flight Academy. We first reported on this case on December 9, 2024. Karim Elsammak (“Plaintiff” or “Elsammak”), who was a student at ATP Flight Academy LLC (“Defendants” or “ATP”), sued his former flight school for using a picture of him in the cockpit on the school’s social media accounts.
ATP responded to Elsammak’s claims by filing a Motion to Dismiss. In their motion, the Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed because it failed to state a plausible claim for relief. ATP’s attorneys stated that a claim has “…facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” (3). ATP argued that Elsammak did not provide sufficient facts or arguments to support his claims. They also contended that the copyright registration submitted by Elsammak showed only authorship—not ownership of rights or permissions—and that he failed to provide adequate evidence of the alleged loss of profits.
In an Amended Complaint, Elsammak clarified several of his claims, specifically asserting that he owns all rights to the photo and detailing the exact instances in which Defendants allegedly violated those rights.
On February 26, 2025, the court denied ATP’s motion to dismiss, indicating that Elsammak’s claims were legally sufficient and warranted further consideration. However, the case did not proceed much further. On April 24, 2025, Elsammak filed a Voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal, agreeing to settle the case with prejudice and for each side to bear its own costs. While it's unclear whether ATP initiated the settlement, it’s reasonable to infer that the court’s denial of their motion to dismiss may have played a significant role in prompting a quicker resolution.