U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Photo Credit: Photo: Rick Kopstein/ALM.

A copyright infringement suit concerning the use of an artist's work in an advertising campaign referencing the erotic drama “Fifty Shades of Grey” is bound by statute to remain in a Manhattan federal court, a judge ruled.

Kalliope Amorphous, a visual artist known for her self-portraits, alleges that Janet Morais and Amandio Pereira, a Virginia-based couple who market and sell furniture manufactured in Portugal, infringed upon two of her works for use in advertisements hawking pieces of furniture that can be seen in “Fifty Shades” and its first sequel, “Fifty Shades Darker.”
Morias was commissioned to design the furniture used in the first film.

Amorphous, who alleges violations of the Copyright Act of 1976, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Lanham Act, says she never would have signed off on her works, titled “Go Back” and “Sunset,” being used to promote the films, which she described as “misogynistic and anti-feminist,” according to court papers.

The advertisements ran online and in periodicals, court papers state, as well as catalogues that were featured at trade shows.

Amorphous, who says she splits her time between New York City and her native Rhode Island, says she did not receive payment for her works and also claims that the use of her works in the ads caused her embarrassment and severe emotional distress.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the defendants have “nothing to do with New York.”

Denying the defendant's motion, U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York said the defendants do a fair amount of business in New York, noting that, in 2016, they filled $200,000 worth of orders in New York, thus giving Amorphous personal jurisdiction under state law.

The judge said that long-arm jurisdiction was further established by the fact that the defendants took part in New York trade shows and sent sales representatives to the state.
Barbara Hoffman of the Law Office of Barbara Hoffman in Manhattan represents Amorphous.

Hoffman said in a voicemail left with the Law Journal that Buchwald's ruling “enables artists to exercise their right to display” their works on their own websites where they can receive compensation for their works.

“The defendants thought they could use my client's work with impunity, displaying the images around the world, and thought they could avoid liability for copyright infringement through a tangle of jurisdictional arguments,” Hoffman said.

The lawyer for the defendants, Neil Koslowe of the Washington, D.C.-based Potomac Law Group, said in an interview that his clients have yet to decide their next steps, including whether or not they will appeal Buchwald's ruling, and that thus far their position in the matter has been dictated by jurisdictional issue.

“The main issue is 'why is a Rhode Island plaintiff suing a Portugal company in New York?',” Koslowe said.