OPINION & ORDER Defendants Lawrence Gagosian (“Mr. Gagosian”) and Gagosian Gallery (together, “Gagosian Defendants”) have moved for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Donald Graham’s claims against them to indirect and unrealized profits attributable to the alleged infringement of Graham’s photograph in artist Richard Prince’s work, Untitled (Portrait of Rastajay92) (“Rastajay92″). The Gagosian Defendants contend that Graham has failed to demonstrate a causal connection between Rastajay92 and any profits from the sales of the other works in Prince’s New Portraits series. They further urge that any claim to Mr. Gagosian’s “unrealized profits” from his ownership of Rastajay92 is duplicative, not sufficiently related to the alleged infringement, and overly speculative. Graham counters that a reasonable jury could find that he is entitled to Gagosian Gallery’s revenues from sales of the other works in the New Portraits series because Rastajay92 was used to promote sales of the other works in the series, and because, according to Graham, the Gagosian Defendants have not met their burden of apportioning any profits not resulting from the infringement. In addition, Graham urges that a reasonable jury could find he is entitled to unrealized profits from the hypothetical resale of Rastajay92 because he alleges both 1) a causal connection between the infringement and unrealized profits, and 2) a method for determining the amount of unrealized profits. The Gagosian Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted. Upon review of the evidence marshaled by plaintiff to support his theories of indirect and unrealized profits recovery, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find a sufficient causal connection between the alleged infringement in Rastajay92 and profits earned by the Gagosian Defendants from the sales of the other New Portraits to support an award of indirect profits. In addition, plaintiff cannot recover unrealized profits from a hypothetical resale of Rastajay92 as a matter of law. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. This action arises out of photographer Donald Graham’s claim that well-known appropriation artist Richard Prince infringed on Graham’s copyright in a photograph entitled Rastafarian Smoking a Joint when Prince created and sold a work featuring that photograph. Prince’s work, called Untitled (Portrait of Rastajay92) (“Rastajay92″), was displayed along with a series of non-infringing works with a similar aesthetic titled New Portraits. Graham has also sued the Gagosian Gallery and its owner Larry Gagosian for infringement because the Gallery purchased and displayed Rastajay92 in an exhibition of the New Portraits, sold Rastajay92 to Mr. Gagosian, and allegedly promoted the exhibition and the sale of the other New Portraits using Rastajay92. Specifically, for the five weeks from September 19, 2014 through October 24, 2014, Gagosian Gallery exhibited the New Portraits series at its gallery at 976 Madison Avenue (“the Exhibition”). (ECF No. 133, Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Def. SUF”)
8-9; 26.) The Exhibition featured 37 New Portraits (“Original Works”), including Rastajay92. (Id. 27.) All of the Original Works were purchased before the Exhibition opened. (Def. SUF
