OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Palmer/Kane LLC (“PIK” or “Plaintiff’) commenced this copyright infringement action against Defendant Benchmark Education Company LLC (“Benchmark” or “Defendant”) on October 12, 2018. (See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff PIK alleges that it owns certain professionally-taken photographs, and that Benchmark has violated PIK’s federally-registered copyrights by using such photographs without or in excess of licenses from PIK. Before this court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 18.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are derived from the Complaint and are assumed to be true for the purpose of this motion. Plaintiff PIK is a stock photography production company that produces commercial imagery. (Compl. 1 11.) PIK is the exclusive owner of thousands of photographs, which have been produced by Patricia Kane and photographed by Gabe Palmer, both members of PIK. (Id. p 15.) The Complaint alleges that the photographs at issue in this case (the “Images”) are each subject to one of the following three registrations with the United States Copyright Office: VAu 529-623, registered June 25, 2001 (the “’623 Registration”); VA 1-297-358, registered February 2, 2005 (the “’358 Registration”); and VA 1-811-724, registered October 12, 2011 (the “’724 Registration”). (Id. 16.) P/K licenses certain of its photographs through agencies such as non-party Corbis Corporation (“Corbis”). (Id. 11.) Corbis, in turn, licenses those photographs to its customers on a “rights-managed basis,” meaning that the customers are issued a limited editorial use license that restricts the use of the photographs according to a variety of factors, e.g., media type, size, etc. (Id. 18.) One of Corbis’s customers is Benchmark. (Id.) Benchmark is a publisher of, among other things, educational materials that are made available in paperback as well as digital formats. (Id. 2.) P/K alleges that Benchmark: (1) used certain Images without seeking any permission or license; (2) used certain Images in ways that exceeded the scope of any licenses; and (3) used certain Images where any licenses had expired. (Id. 3.) P/K alleges that it has identified at least 12 acts of copyright infringement, as summarized below: Image No. Photograph Title Photograph ID Copyright Registration Publication Date(s) Infringing Title(s) 1 Workers in Protective Suits Sampling Lake Water I4690008 ’623 2006 “Discover Forensic Chemistry” and ancillary products. 2 Water Testing I4670102 ’623 2006 “Ocean Pollution” and ancillary products. 3 High School Chemistry O0670109 ’623 2004 “Science Measuring Tools” and ancillary products. 4 Family Watching Falling Stars PE1220350 ’623 2006 “Stars” and ancillary products. 5 Children Using Flash Cards to Learn Math O0660106 ’623 2004 “Welcome to Our School” and ancillary products. 6 Veterinarian Giving Dog Examination SC0030102 ’623 Unknown title and ancillary products. 7 Juicy Fruit NT5288640 ’358 2004 “Crazy Fruit Salad” and ancillary products. 8 Brother and Sister at the Beach PE0040191 ’358 2007 “Life at the Beach” and ancillary products. 9 A line of Shadows PE0410488 ’358 2011 “Making Maps” and ancillary products. 10 Family Beach Outing PE0130107 ’358 2007 “Summer to Fall” and ancillary products. 11 Boy and Girl Looking at Globe 4215212623 ’724 2007 “All About Continents” and in “Mapping the Way” and ancillary products for both titles. 12 Speeding Wheelchair Athlete PS2710298 ’724 2005 “Three Laws of Motion” and ancillary products. (See id. Ex. A.)1 Plaintiff also alleges the involvement of various Doe defendants who are printers or other parties that were involved in the printing and/or distribution of titles containing P/K’s photographs. (Id. 14.) STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 12(b)(6) On a 12(b)(6) motion, dismissal is proper unless the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When there are well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, “a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must “construe all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 567 (2d Cir. 2009). The critical inquiry is whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to nudge the claims “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A motion to dismiss will be denied where the allegations “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rule 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In this Circuit, to meet the pleading requirements under Rule 8 in cases involving copyright infringement, plaintiffs have consistently been required to allege the four-prong standard set forth in Kelly v. L.L. Cool J., 145 F.R.D. 32, 36, n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). See Jacobs v. Carnival Corp., No. 06 CIV. 0606 (DAB), 2009 WL 856637, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2009). Under Kelly, the complaint must allege:’(1) which specific original works are the subject of the copyright claim, (2) that plaintiff owns the copyrights in those works, (3) that the copyrights have been registered in accordance with the statute, and (4) by what acts during what time the defendant infringed the copyright.’” Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings LLC, No. 16-CV-5393 (KMW), 2017 WL 3432303, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) (quoting Kelly., 145 F.R.D. at 36, aff’d, 23 F.3d 398 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 950 (1994)). DISCUSSION Benchmark argues that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead valid copyright registration status for any of the works that Plaintiff claims Benchmark infringed. (Def. Mem. in Supp. of Motion (“Def. Mem.”) at 11, ECF No. 19.) Benchmark further contends that P/K’s claims are barred by the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations. (Id. at 15-19.) Benchmark additionally argues that the Complaint has failed to identify the specific infringing works or infringing acts. (Id. at 19-22.) Lastly, Benchmark moves to dismiss P/K’s claims to the extent they allege contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement. (Id. at 22-25.) These arguments are addressed in turn. I. Copyright Infringement Pleading Requirements As to the adequacy of P/K’s pleadings, the Court considers whether each of the four Kelly factors has been satisfied. See Kelly, 145 F.R.D. at 36. a. Identification of Specific Photographs Plaintiff alleges that it has “identified at least 12 acts of infringement by Benchmark of its Photographs,” which are set forth in a chart attached to the Complaint. (See Compl. 17 & Ex. A.) The chart includes the photograph’s title, “photograph ID,” the relevant copyright registration, publication date(s), and “infringing title(s).” (See id., Ex. A.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff provides additional details regarding seven of the Images in the chart: Image Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11. (See id.
20-45.) Plaintiff, however, notes that the works identified in the Complaint represent “a fraction of the acts of copyright infringement that Benchmark committed,” and suggests that “access to Benchmark’s records” would reveal the “full scope of infringing publications.” (Id. 4.) In this vein, Plaintiff references “additional” Photographs, “other…editions” “other…titles” and “additional licenses” that it implicates in the infringement. (See id.
