St. Francis Has Filed an Answer Claiming Various Defenses
We first reported on the case of Freeplay Music v. St. Francis University in a post on August 4, 2025, describing how Freeplay Music, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “FPM”) filed a Complaint against St. Francis University (“Defendant” or “St. Francis”) for infringing on FPM’s copyright in promotional videos.
On September 22, 2025, St. Francis filed its Answer responding to the claims made by FPM. In this Answer, St. Francis acknowledges FPM’s copyrights and claims while denying all alleged infringement.
St. Francis argues that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is the incorrect venue, claiming that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over St. Francis, and that because the alleged infringement did not happen in the district, the case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant also criticizes the timeliness of FPM with Statute of Limitations and Laches and Abandonment defenses. St. Francis argues that the statute of limitations for the infringement has passed because it has been more than three years since the alleged events. It also argues that the Plaintiff delayed its filing unnecessarily, which has made it difficult for St. Francis to find evidence and witnesses for its defense.
St. Francis levels another criticism at FPM’s claims: the Answer argues that FPM failed to state a claim in the Complaint, saying, “Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of the statutes giving rise to Plaintiff’s alleged causes of action” (6).
The Answer also details several defenses for the Defendant’s use of the material involved. One way St. Francis defends its use is under Fair Use. The Answer claims that the use is transformative, not commercial, and “does not affect the potential value of the work,” which could justify its use as fair (7). It also emphasizes that it used a small amount of the material under a de minimis defense. St. Francis also defends its use by arguing that the material used is not eligible for copyright, was not registered at the time it was allegedly infringed and was placed in the public domain. In addition, the Answer alleges that FPM led the Defendant to believe that it had permission to use the content, justifying its use.
As a final defense, the Defendant claims that if any infringement took place, it was innocently done. The Answer explains that St. Francis did not know that it was using songs that were protected, so if infringement is found, it was unaware of it.
St. Francis asks the court to deny FPM’s requests for relief, dismiss the claims in their entirety with prejudice, and award the legal costs for its defense.
Following this Answer, the dispute has moved forward for case management and scheduling. We will continue to monitor the case and post further updates.