DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski (“Sadowski” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against defendants Zan Ng (“Ng”) d/b/a http://nychaobao.com/ and http://koreanhln.com/, Admerasia, Inc. (“Admerasia”), and Does 1 through 10, alleging that Defendants reproduced and published without authorization three of Plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs, as well as intentionally falsified copyright management information associated with the photographs. (See “Amended Complaint” or “Am. Compl.,” Dkt. No. 16.) Sadowski has filed a partial motion for summary judgment against Ng1 and Admerasia (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for their alleged copyright infringement under Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 100 et seq (“Count I”). (See Dkt. No. 53.) Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Sadowski on both Count I and the remaining cause of action for intentional falsification of copyright management information pursuant to Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 1202 (“Count II”). (See Dkt. No. 59.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Sadowski’s motion for partial summary judgment and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND A. FACTS2 Sadowski is a professional photographer who works as an independent contractor for the publication New York Post (the “Post”). Under his arrangement with the Post, Sadowski charges the Post a discounted flat rate per shift for a one-time non-exclusive editorial license to the photographs taken during the shift. Ng is the founder, President, and CEO of Admerasia, a marketing firm that generates revenue through commercial advertising on websites. Ng owns, supervises, and controls two website domains: (1) www.koreanhln.com (“KoreanHLN”), a self-described “hybrid news platform” that delivers news articles to Koreans living in New York and Los Angeles, and (2)www.nychaobao.com (“NYChaoBao”), a self-described “lifestyle and entertainment news source” that delivers news to “trendy Chinese individuals with high purchasing power” in the tristate area. Postings may be emailed to administrators of the Websites for publication. Both Websites deliver advertisements. The domain www.koreanhln.com was registered to “Eddie See ADM,” an employee of Admerasia, with an email address of [email protected]. The domainwww.nychaobao.com was registered to “Webmaster Admerasia” with an email address of [email protected]. At issue in this action are three photographs taken by Sadowski which appeared on either KoreanHLN or NYCHaoBao without Sadowski’s permission. The first image is a photograph of Carnegie Delicatessen (“Deli Image”), registered with the United States Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”) on December 13, 2015. The Deli Image was first published by the Post website on October 19, 2013 in connection with a news story (the “Deli Story”), crediting Sadowski for the Image. The Deli Image then appeared in a Korean language article on KoreanHLN on February 10, 2016. The KoreanHLN article appears to be a translated version of the Deli Story. A banner advertisement appeared at the top of the KoreanHLN article featuring the Deli Image. Upon receipt of a letter from Sadowski’s counsel, the Deli Image was removed from KoreanHLN. The second and third images at issue in this action appeared on NYChaoBao without Sadowski’s permission. The second image is a photograph of police officers on the platform of the New York City subway, which is an image Sadowski registered with the Copyright Office on March 31, 2016 (“Subway Image”). Like the Deli Image, the Subway Image was first published on the Post website with a news story on March 6, 2016 (the “Subway Story”), crediting Sadowski for the photograph. The Subway Image appeared on NYChaoBao in a Chinese language article posted on March 8, 2016, which appears to be a translated version of the Subway Story. The third image in this action depicts a car crash involving a police vehicle (“Crash Image”). The Crash Image was registered with the Copyright Office on August 26, 2016 and was first published on the Post website on January 8, 2015 in connection with a news story (the “Crash Story”), crediting Sadowski for the photograph. The Crash Image then appeared in a Chinese language article posted on January 9, 2015 on NYChaoBao, which appears to be a translated version of the Crash Story. The Subway Image and Crash Image were removed from NYChaoBao in the ordinary course of business. Upon discovering his Images on KoreanHLN and NYChaoBao, Sadowski brought two causes of action against Defendants: (1) copyright infringement pursuant to Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 101 et seq, (the “Copyright Act”) and (2)falsification, removal, or alteration of copyright management information pursuant to Title 17 of the UnitedStates Code, Section 1202 (the “Digital Millennium CopyrightAct” or “DMCA”). Sadowski seeks both damages and injunctive relief for Defendants’ alleged infringement. B. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS Following discovery, Sadowski filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Count I. Sadowski contends that summary judgment should be entered in his favor on Count I because the appearance of his copyrighted Images on KoreanHLN and NYChaoBao (collectively, the “Websites”) violated his exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display the Images, and Defendants are contributorily and vicariously liable for this infringing activity. (See Motion at 10-12.) Sadowski argues there is no question of fact that Admerasia and Ng should be held liable for copyright infringement since Admerasia is named as the registrant and administrator of the Websites and its employees, including Ng, review content and ultimately decide whether Images appear on the Websites. (See id. at 11.) Further, Ng is the current CEO and owner of Admerasia, and he maintains a personal ownership interest in the Websites. (See id. at 12.) Sadowski contends that the Websites create a financial benefit for Defendants through advertising, including “direct monetization” of articles featuring the Images. (See id.) Sadowski seeks willful statutory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs for the Deli Image and Subway Image, since he registered these images with the Copyright Office within the statutory timeframe. (See id. at 12-14.) Defendants oppose Sadowski’s Motion and cross-move for summary judgment on both Counts. (See “Opp’n,” Dkt. No. 60.) As to Admerasia, Defendants argue that the company cannot be held liable for copyright infringement or the intentional removal of copyright management information because Admerasia has never had any involvement with the Websites, which are owned solely by Ng. (See id. at 8-9.) Defendants also argue that the claims for contributory infringement and vicarious liability against both Defendants must be dismissed because they are raised for the first time in Plaintiff’s Motion, and regardless, Defendants had no control over what appeared on the Websites and the Websites never generated any revenue. (See id. at 10-11.) Similarly, Defendants contend that Sadowski has not established that either Ng or Admerasia intentionally removed copyright management information from the Images to substantiate a violation of the DMCA. (See id. at 12-13, 22-25.) Defendants raise additional affirmative defenses, including that Sadowski lacks standing to bring an infringement action, Defendants’ use of the Images is protected by the fair-use doctrine, and Defendants had an implied license from the Post to use the Images. (See id. at 13-21.) Sadowski moves for summary judgment as to all of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. (See Motion at 14-25.) II. LEGAL STANDARD In connection with a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 56″), “summary judgment is proper if, viewing all the facts of the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, no genuine issue of material fact remains for adjudication.” Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34, 35 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50 (1986)). The role of a court in ruling on such a motion “is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried, while resolving ambiguities and drawing reasonable inferences against the moving party.” Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1986). “Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.” Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists, or that due to the paucity of evidence presented by the non-movant, no rational jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. See Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., L.P., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. Further, in seeking to defeat summary judgment, a party may not rely on “mere conclusory allegations or denials” because these “cannot themselves create a genuine issue of material fact where none would otherwise exist.” Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Instead, the non-moving party must “cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record” to show that “a fact…is genuinely disputed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). See also Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (on motion for summary judgment, “[t]he time has come…’to put up or shut up.’”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 811 (2003). When deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, the standard to be applied “is the same as that for individual summary judgment motions and a court must consider each motion independent of the other.” Schultz v. Stoner, 308 F.Supp.2d 289, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “[E]ach party’s motion must be examined on its own merits, and in each case all reasonable inferences must be drawn against the party whose motion is under consideration.” Morales v. Quintel Entm’t, Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2001). “[W]hen both parties move for summary judgment, asserting the absence of any genuine issues of material facts, the court need not enter judgment for either party.” Id. at 121. III. DISCUSSION Sadowski seeks summary judgment on the issues of Defendants’ vicarious and contributory copyright infringement and their affirmative defenses. Defendants cross-move on the issues of their liability for infringement under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A. COUNT I — COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Section 501(b) of the Copyright Act establishes that the “legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright” may bring an action for infringement of that right. 17 U.S.C. §501(b); see also Russian Entm’t Wholesale, Inc. v.Close-Up Intern., Inc., 482 Fed. App’x 602, 604 (2d Cir.2012). These exclusive rights include reproducing, preparing derivative works, distributing, performing, or displaying a copyrighted work. See 17 U.S.C. §106. Copyright owners may grant two types of licenses authorizing others to use their rights. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo, 882 F.3d394, 410 (2d Cir. 2018); Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90, 98 (2dCir. 2007). The first type of license, relevant in this action, is a nonexclusive license which permits a licensee to use the copyrighted material, but it does not transfer any ownership in the exclusive rights, which remain with the copyright holder. See Davis, 505 F.3d at 100. Here, Sadowski granted the Post a nonexclusive license to use the Images (see “Post Agreement,” Dkt. No. 62-1 at 3), and contrary to Defendants’ arguments, a grant of a nonexclusive license does not strip Sadowski of his exclusive rights to the Images. See Davis, 505 F.3d at 100. Accordingly, pursuant to the Copyright Act, Sadowski has standing to bring an infringement claim for his copyrighted Images. To establish a claim for copyright infringement, Sadowski must prove that (1) he owned a valid copyright; and (2) Defendants committed unauthorized copying of his copyrighted works. See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Recs., 351 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2003). It is undisputed that Sadowski owns a valid copyright in each Image. Sadowski has submitted Certificates of Registration with the United States Copyright Office for each Image, and a copyright registration certificate is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright. See Boisson, 273 F.3d at 267. Although the presumption of validity that accompanies a certificate of registration may be rebutted, Defendants have not contested the validity of Sadowski’s copyrights. Id. For the second element, there also is no dispute that KoreanHLN and NYChaoBao copied Sadowski’s Images without authorization — Sadowski’s exact Images appeared on the Websites and neither KoreanHLN nor NYChaoBao were authorized to display them. (See Opp’n at 9, 18, 22, 25.) However, Ng and Admerasia, the two named defendants against whom Sadowski seeks liability, contest that they can be held liable for KoreanHLN and NYChaoBao’s infringing activity on multiple grounds. 1. Direct Liability To be held liable for direct infringement under theCopyright Act, a party must be found to have violated one of the copyright owners’ exclusive rights, which include the right to make copies, distribute copies to the public for sale or other transfer of ownership, and publicly display the works. See 17 U.S.C. §106. Sadowski’s Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants “used” the Images in translated articles on the Websites, Defendants “made an unauthorized copy” of each Image, and Defendants “uploaded it” to their Websites. (See Am. Compl.
