Cramer v. Netflix - Complaint

Case 3:22-cv-00131-SLH Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLYVANIA
)
MOLLY CRAMER, )
)
Plaintiff, ) 3:22-cv-131
Civil Action No. ________________
)
)
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
) INFRINGEMENT
NETFLIX, Inc. and )
ROYAL GOODE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, )
)
Defendants. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
Plaintiff Molly Cramer, by and through her undersigned attorney, alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff Molly Cramer (“Ms. Cramer”) is a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, residing in Friedens, Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Los Gatos, California.
3. Defendant Royal Goode Productions, LLC (“Royal Goode”) is a New York
limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
4. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 because this case involves a claim for copyright
infringement.
VENUE
5. Venue is proper in the United States District Court of Western Pennsylvania
because Netflix’s streaming media services and Royal Goode’s film production of the Tiger King
series can be found in the Western District of Pennsylvania, the events giving rise to the claims
occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Defendants engaged in copyright
infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c); 28 U.S.C. §
1400(a).
THE PARTIES
6. Ms. Cramer is a talented tattoo artist and the owner of “Petals and Pain Tattoo
Parlor” located in Somerset, Pennsylvania.
7. On information and belief, Netflix is a Delaware corporation, having its principal
place of business located at 100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, California 95032. Netflix provides
subscription-based over-the-top streaming media services of a library of films and television
programs, including those produced in-house, through its commercial website www.netflix.com.
8. Netflix has over 220 million subscribers in over 190 countries worldwide.
9. Netflix produces original content, such as the series “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem
and Madness” (“the Tiger King Series”).
10. Netflix owns, operates, and is solely responsible for the original content available
on www.netflix.com.
11. On information and belief, Royal Goode is a New York limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 49 Bleeker Street, Suite 601, New York, New York,
10012. Royal Goode is a film production company and, on information and belief, Eric Goode is
2
the sole member of the company. Royal Goode filmed the Tiger King series which was and
currently is streaming on Netflix.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. In March 2020, in order to raise money due to the closing of Ms. Cramer’s tattoo
business as well as her husband’s, Noah Cramer’s, business, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Noah
Cramer came up with the idea of selling gift certificates online, whereby purchasers of the gift
certificates could vote on which one of several funny tattoo pictures created by Ms. Cramer would
be tattooed by Ms. Cramer on Mr. Cramer’s thigh. Ms. Cramer and her husband were viewers of
the Tiger King series produced by Royal Goode which at the time was streaming on Netflix. The
Tiger King series deals with the life of former zookeeper and convicted felon “Joe Exotic,” also
known as “The Tiger King,” whose real name is Joseph Allen Maldonado-Passage (hereinafter
referred to as “Joe Exotic”). One of the tattoo pictures created by Ms. Cramer was a likeness of
Joe Exotic, which picture also included a Lysol can, depiction of five Covid viruses, and a toilet
paper banner containing the words “Quarantine 2020.” Ms. Cramer believed that because of Joe
Exotic’s popularity, notoriety, and global recognition, such a funny picture of Joe Exotic for
tattooing on her husband would receive a very large response by the public for the online sale of
the gift certificates.
13. Between March 29, 2020 and April 3, 2020, Ms. Cramer sold the gift certificates
on her Facebook page and garnered close to $4000.00. The vote was tallied on April 5, 2020, and
of the 117 votes received, the Joe Exotic picture received 67 votes. Because of this successful sale
of the gift certificates, Ms. Cramer was able to reopen her tattoo parlor.
14. On April 5, 2020, Ms. Cramer tattooed the Joe Exotic tattoo on her husband (“Joe
Exotic tattoo”) and posted a picture on her Facebook page of the Joe Exotic tattoo the same day.
3
15. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Cramer has been and still is the holder of the
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq., and all amendments
thereto) (the “Copyright Act”) to reproduce, distribute, display, or license the reproduction,
distribution, and/or display of the Joe Exotic tattoo. A copy of the Joe Exotic tattoo is shown in
Exhibit 1 attached hereto, which is the subject of this action.
16. On November 19, 2021, one day after the Tiger King series, Season 2, episode 1
(“Tiger King, series 2, ep. 1”) premiered, Ms. Cramer started receiving phone calls and texts from
friends and clients telling her that they saw Ms. Cramer’s Joe Exotic tattoo on Tiger King, series
2, ep. 1. Specifically, the Joe Exotic tattoo is shown about two minutes into the film for about
three seconds.
17. On November 29, 2021, Ms. Cramer and her husband sent a letter to Joe Exotic in
which they asked for his permission to use the tattoo that Ms. Cramer had tattooed on her husband
as well as to continue posting a picture of the Joe Exotic tattoo on her social media.
18. On or about December 17, 2021 Ms. Cramer and her husband received a very
friendly letter from Joe Exotic in which, inter alia, he happily consented to the use of his likeness
in the tattoo and on social media. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The letter
apparently is incorrectly dated “11-24-21,” as a copy of the envelope that the letter was sent in
shows a date stamp of December 17, 2021. A copy of this envelope is attached hereto as Exhibit
3.
19. On January 11, 2022, Ms. Cramer obtained a federal copyright registration,
afforded number VA-228504, for the Joe Exotic tattoo, which was titled “Quarantine 2020.” A
copy of the copyright registration is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
4
20. On February 9, 2022, Ms. Cramer’s attorney, Gwen R. Acker Wood, sent a cease
and desist letter to David Hyman, Chief Legal Officer of Netflix, with respect to its unauthorized
use of Ms. Cramer’s Joe Exotic tattoo, requesting, inter alia, that Netflix immediately remove the
infringing photo of the Joe Exotic tattoo from Tiger King, series 2, ep. 1. Additionally, because
the extent of damages incurred by the incalculable number of times the infringing picture of the
Joe Exotic tattoo was seen by tens of millions subscribers worldwide by the streaming of Tiger
King, series 2, ep. 1 was impossible to determine, Ms. Cramer requested an initial settlement
amount of ten million dollars. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
5.
21. On February 23, 2022, attorney Acker Wood received a reply letter from counsel
for Royal Goode, Tony Doherty, in which he alleged that there was no copyright infringement by
Royal Goode because of the Fair Use doctrine. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit 6.
22. On March 16, 2022, attorney Acker Wood sent a second Cease and Desist letter to
attorney Doherty, strongly refuting that the Fair Use doctrine was an applicable defense to the
blatant, unauthorized use of Ms. Cramer’s copyrighted Joe Exotic tattoo in Tiger King, series 2,
ep. 1. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
23. On March 30, 2022, attorney Acker Wood received a second letter from attorney
Doherty, in which he reiterated his allegation that the Fair Use doctrine applied with respect to his
client’s infringing use of the Joe Exotic tattoo. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit 8.
24. On April 29, 2022, attorney Acker Wood sent a second letter to attorney Doherty,
in which she reiterated her strong refutation that the Fair Use doctrine was an applicable defense
5
to the infringing use of Ms. Cramer’s copyrighted Joe Exotic tattoo in Tiger King series 2, ep. 1.
Additionally, in an attempt to settle the matter and to avoid a protracted, stressful, and no doubt
costly lawsuit which Ms. Cramer could ill afford compared to Netflix and Royal Goode, Ms.
Cramer offered a second settlement proposal of $50,000.00. A true and correct copy of this letter
is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
25. On May 6, 2022, attorney Acker Wood received a third hostile, threatening letter
from attorney Doherty, in which he stated that “he sees no reason why any payment should be
made to your client.” Attorney Doherty then stated that if Ms. Cramer decides to pursue this matter
through the courts, he intended to move for dismissal or summary judgment at the earliest date
possible and seek attorney’s fees and costs from Ms. Cramer. A true and correct copy of this letter
is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
26. As of the date of filing of this Complaint, the infringing photo of the Joe Exotic
tattoo still is shown in the introduction of Tiger King Season 2, episode 1, without credit or
attribution to Ms. Cramer.
27. Thus, despite Ms. Cramer’s repeated requests for Defendants to remove the
infringing photo of her Joe Exotic tattoo from Tiger King series 2, ep. 1, as well as her attempt to
reach an amicable settlement, Defendants have completely ignored all of her requests.
28. Ms. Cramer has suffered and continues to suffer incalculable losses because of
Defendants’ wrongful actions because, rather than Ms. Cramer being recognized as the talented
artist who created the Joe Exotic tattoo, and being rewarded for this recognition by experiencing
an increase in her tattoo business, popularity, and fame on social media and in other venues, tens
of millions of viewers of the Tiger King series have undoubtedly associated the infringing photo
of the Joe Exotic tattoo as originating with Defendants.
6
29. Further, Defendants’ unauthorized use of the infringing photo of Ms. Cramer’s Joe
Exotic tattoo has caused Ms. Cramer much distress. Not only did Defendants ignore Ms. Cramer’s
repeated requests to remove the infringing picture of the Joe Exotic tattoo from Tiger King, series
2, ep. 1, and did not entertain any form of settlement or suggest giving Ms. Cramer attribution and
credit for the Joe Exotic tattoo, Defendants effectively bullied Ms. Cramer by making the above-
described litigation threats, which caused and is still causing Ms. Cramer severe anxiety. In
addition, Defendants’ wrongful actions has caused and continues to cause Ms. Cramer distress
because said wrongful actions detracted from Ms. Cramer’s tattoo business as well as detracted
from the experience of sharing her tattoo artistry, as exemplified by the Joe Exotic tattoo, on social
media and other venues, due to Defendants’ essentially holding themselves out as the originator
of the Joe Exotic tattoo by arrogantly and blatantly using an infringing photo of the Joe Exotic
tattoo in the Tiger King series without credit or attribution to Ms. Cramer.
30. Such use by Defendants of the infringing photo of Ms. Cramer’s Joe Exotic tattoo
in the Tiger King series since at least Ms. Cramer’s first cease and desist letter (Exhibit 4)
constitutes willful and intentional appropriation of Ms. Cramer’s hard work and talents for
Defendants’ benefit and subsequent profits, without any cost to Defendants.
31. The Joe Exotic tattoo is an original work, copyrightable under the Copyright Act,
in which Ms. Cramer owns the copyright registration. Thus, Ms. Cramer has the exclusive rights
and privileges to reproduce, distribute, and display the Joe Exotic tattoo.
32. Ms. Cramer never authorized the Defendants, by license or otherwise, to use a
photo of her copyrighted Joe Exotic tattoo in the Tiger King series.
33. Defendants infringed Ms. Cramer’s exclusive rights in the Joe Exotic tattoo by
showing a picture of the Joe Exotic tattoo without Ms. Cramer’s permission.
7
34. The continuous streaming of Tiger King, season 2, ep. 1, in which tens of millions
of subscribers worldwide have viewed, and currently still can view this episode, in which an
infringing photo of the Joe Exotic tattoo is shown, constitutes an incalculable number of copyright
infringement claims against Defendants under the Copyright Act. Ms. Cramer has sustained, and
continues to sustain, substantial damage to the value of her copyright in that the unauthorized use
by Defendants of her copyrighted Joe Exotic tattoo has diminished and continues to diminish the
recognition, popularity, fame and monetary reward that Ms. Cramer would otherwise have
received or still could receive but for Defendants’ continuing wrongful actions.
35. Defendants continue to infringe Ms. Cramer’s copyrighted Joe Exotic tattoo, and
unless temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoined by order of this Court, Defendants will
keep infringing said copyrighted material, all to Ms. Cramer’s irreparable injury. As a result of
Defendants’ acts of infringement, Ms. Cramer is without an adequate remedy at law in that
damages are extremely difficult to ascertain.
36. As a direct result of the conduct of Defendants, Ms. Cramer has suffered and
continues to suffer damages in an amount and extent to be determined. Ms. Cramer was unable to
realize the just and fair profit and resultant fame, popularity and publicity from the creation of the
Joe Exotic tattoo, as the public effectively was led to believe by Defendants that Defendants, rather
than Ms. Cramer, owned and/or created the Joe Exotic tattoo for the Tiger King series.
37. Defendants have continued to commit all of the aforesaid acts deliberately,
blatantly, willfully, maliciously, and oppressively, without regard to Ms. Cramer’s intellectual
property rights.
8
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Copyright Infringement Against Defendants)
38. Ms. Cramer repeats and realleges the averments contained in paragraphs 1-37 as
though fully set forth herein.
39. The above-described conduct by Defendants constitutes willful copyright
infringement under the Copyright Act.
40. As a result of the above-described conduct by Defendants, Ms. Cramer has been
damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
41. By reason of the copyright infringement described above, Ms. Cramer is entitled
to recover actual damages comprising Defendants’ profits in proportion to the percentage of time
the infringing photo of the Joe Exotic tattoo has and is still appearing on Tiger King, season 2,
ep. 1, and by the number of times Tiger King, season 2, ep. 1 has been streamed by the tens of
millions of Netflix’s subscribers worldwide; and to the extent the above calculations are not
included as part of Ms. Cramer’s damages, plus attorney’s fees.
42. In the alternative, at the election of Ms. Cramer, Ms. Cramer is entitled to recover
from Defendants statutory damages up to $150,000.00 per copyright infringement incident for
Defendants’ wrongful actions, plus attorney’s fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Ms. Cramer prays for judgment in her favor and against Defendants as
follows:
1. A finding that Defendants unauthorized use of Ms. Cramer’s copyrighted Joe
Exotic tattoo violated Ms. Cramer’s rights under the Federal Copyright Act.
9
2. An order by the Court immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, its
officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies,
successors, assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Defendants from copying,
duplicating, selling, licensing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using without authorization
copies of the Joe Exotic tattoo to which Ms. Cramer is the owner of exclusive rights under the
respective copyright based thereon.
3. Awarding Ms. Cramer all damages she suffered as a result of Defendants’ willful
and intentional copyright infringement to the fullest extent allowed by law, including: (a) ordering
Defendants to account to Ms. Cramer for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants
by their willful and intentional infringement of Ms. Cramer’s copyright or such damages as are
proper; (b) the maximum allowable statutory damages because of Defendants’ willful and
intentional infringement of Ms. Cramer’s copyright; and (c) all of Ms. Cramer’s actual and/or
statutory damages for Defendants’ willful and intentional copyright infringement.
4. An award of all of Ms. Cramer’s attorney’s fees and costs to the fullest extent
allowed by law, including pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(3), and § 1203(b)(5).
6. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in the maximum amount
permitted by law.
7. For all other relief this Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
Dated: August 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Gwen R. Acker Wood

Gwen R. Acker Wood, (PA. State Bar No. 89081)
ACKER WOOD INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW, LLC
10
4981 McKnight Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15237
412.486.1038
412.487.2837 (fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Molly Cramer
11
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms. Cramer hereby
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 11, 2022 /s/Gwen R. Acker Wood

Gwen R. Acker Wood, (PA. State Bar No.
89081)
ACKER WOOD INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW, LLC
4981 McKnight Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
412.486.1038
412.487.2837 (fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Molly Cramer
12
Case 3:22-cv-00131-SLH Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 2
IS44 (Rcv. l0/l0l
CIVIL COVER SIIEET
purposc ofinitiating
lnf trating (hc cf
civil
vif dockct shccr. (sEE
/S, tNST RUCT|oNS oN NE{T pAGt: oF T!1ts t:oR,v.)
l. (a) PLAINTIFFS DE ANTS
Molly Cramer Netflix, Inc. and
Royal Goode Productions, LLC
(b) County of Residence of First Lisred PlrintitT AlleOheny_ County of Residcnce of Fir.st Listcd Def'endant
(EA'CEPT IN L!.5. PI,4INTIT-F C.ASES)
Santa Clafa
(IN L).5, PLAINTIFF
ONLY) CASES
NO'l-l-i lN t-AND CONDEN,INA'flON CASES. USE THL. LOCATTON OF
I'HE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(C) Anorneys (Firu Nattrc. Atldrcss. qild Telel:hotre Nuurher) Attorneys (ll Knofn)
Gwen R. Acker Wood
Acker Wood Intellectual Property Law, LLC
lQRl t\In!(ninht Pnad
il. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (ptata un ") ' in Otta rlot Ontr) f lf . CITIZENSHIP oF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (r,td.e oil '.y" in oua Bo.r tor ptuintitl
Ilit l)ivcrsit.t ( usct 0ulv)
!r [J.S. Govcrnment
E I Fcdefal ()uestion PTF DI:F
uncl Onc Bo.r.lor Dcltntlunt)
PTI- DEF
PlaintitT ((l $ (iot,crnut,rtt Cirizc| of 'lhis Sra(c
Nor il P(nt )
I t
! t Incorporarcd ar Principal Placc
ol'tJusincss In fhis StrlE
!r [a
! 2 U.S. Covcrnrncrr !.t t-livcrsiry ( rlircn 0l Anolhcr Stalc [ : f] : lncort)oriltcd ard Principal Placc ! S I tt
Dclbndart (lnditntL ( iti:trt.tltip ol Purtitt iI lt.n Illt <rl lJusincss In Anolhcr Stalc
_
('itizcn or Suhjccr ofa
Foreign (lountty
! -l LJ .1 Forciiin Nltion ! o Io
IV. NATURE 0F SUIT 22..",, in Onc Bo.t Onlt) Click here for:
[-l I to t'rsurrn"" PDRSONAT, IN.IURY PERSONAT, IN.'URY 5 Drug Relrtetl Seizure 422 Appeal 2li (,S( l5E i7-5 False (llaims Act
l-l l2o Marinc 3 l0 Ailplanr' [ 3('5 l,crsonal lnjury - of Propcrty 2 I USC 88 I 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tanr (.11 USC
[-l tlo Mitler ect .il5 Airplane l\'oduct Product Liabilitv 2II TJSC I57 3'729(a))
[ | +0 Negotiabte lnsrrunrenl l-iabi I ity [ 367 Hcalrh Care/ 400 State Reappofl ionment
! | 50 Recovery of Overpaynrenr 320 Assault, t-ibel & PhanDaccutical ,l
I 0 Antitrust
& Erforccment ol'Judl S lander Personal Injury t{20 C'opyrights 430 tsanks and Banking
T-l t5l Mcdicare Acr 330 ljcderal Ernployers' Product Liabilitv 830 Patenl 450 Conrrnerce
! 1 52 R"coucry ol Dcl'aulr!'d Liatri lity f] -.1r,8 Asbcstos ttcrsonal 835 Patcnt - Abbrcviatcd 460 Dcportation
Studcnt Loans 3.10 Marinc Injury l,roducr Ncw Drug Application 4?0 Rackctccr lnllucnccd and
(Excludes Velerans) 345 Marine Pnduct Liability li40 Tradcmark Corrupt Organizarions
! l5-t Rccovcry oiOvcrpaymcnt Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY It80 Dcl'cnd Tradc Sccrcts 4ll0 Consuntcr Crcdir
of Vctcran's Bcncflts 350 Motor Vclriclc f-l l70 othcr Fraud 7 I 0 Fair Labor Standards Act of20l6 (15 USC 168l or 1692)
! 160 Srockholdcrs' Suits .155 Motor Vclriclc fl :l I truth irr Lcnding Acl {85 Tc)cphonc Consunrcr
fl 190 Othcr (inrrmct Product Liabilitv ! .i80 Othcr Pcrsonal 720 Labor/Managcmcnt Protcction Acl
[-l lo5 Contrzcr Producr Liabilirv 3(r0Othcr Pcrsonal ProDcrtv Dantagc Rclations 861 HrA (l39sfr) 490 Cablc/Sat TV
I luc Frunchisc I nlury
fl -r85 P^p"riy ttunr,,-g" 740 Railu,ay Labu Act t(61 Blauk Lung (923) ll50 Securities/Conrmoditics/
362 Personal lrrjury - Product Lrabilitl, 751 Funily and Medical ft6..l DlwC/DlWw (405(g)) Exchange
llcdical Malpracticc l-cavc Act 861 SSID Titlc XVI 890 Othcr Statutorv Actions
7()0 ()thcr l.rbor I-i(isariorr 865 l{Sl (405(g)) 89 1 Agricultural Acrs
| 0 Land Condctnnatiotl 440 Olhcf C ivi Habcas C0'pus: 7() I [inrplove'c Rcrircrlcnt 89J Environmcntal Mat(crs
120 Foreclosure 4Jl Voling .l(r.i Alicn fJctaincc Inconrc Sccurity Act ll95 lrree(lonr of lntirrrrarion
2J0 Rcnr Lcasc & Ejccrmcnr 4-12 Errployrncnt 5 l0 Motions t0 Vacatc It70 Taxcs (U.S. Plaintill Act
240 'fons to [-and 413 Housingi Scntcncc or Dcltndant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product [-iabiliry Acconrnro, lat ions 5-10 Gcneral 871 IRS-Third Party .\99 Adm inislrativc Proccdurc
290 All Othcr Rcal Propcrty 445 Anrer. rv/Ilisabilitics - 535 Derth Penultl, 26 USC 760e Act/Review or Appeal ol'
Enrploynrc nt Othcr: 461 Naturalization Applicat Agency Decision
4-16 Anrcr. w/[)isabilirics - 5J0 Mandanus & Otlrcr 465 Olhcr Inrnrigration 950 Constitutionality of
Othcr 5.50 Civil Righrs Actrons Statc Statutcs
44li Education 555 l)rison (-orrdition
5(r0 ('ivil I)etrinec.
Cbnditions ol'
Con llncrncnt
N lPluca tn ''X in Ote llo.r Onl.v)
p1 I Original ll fl 3 f-l 4 n 6 Multidisrrict fl
Rcmoved tionr Rernanded fiorn
Procccdi ng
Reinsrated or
;-1 5 Transferred tiom 8 Multidistrict
Statc Court Appcllatc Court Rcopcncd Anothcl District Litigarion Litigation -
(speclly) 'l'ransf'er Direct File
Cite the U.S;. Civil Statr.rte under which you are filing (Do not cite .iurisdictionul stututes unlass divcrsit!)
17 U.S.C. Section 50'l
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Bricf descri ption ol' causc
Copyrlght Infringement
vu. REQUESTED tN L] CIIECIi IF'THIS IS A CLASS,{CI'ION DI'J\'IAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in conrplaint
COMPLAINT: UNDEI{ IIULE 2i. l..R.Cr'.I> ,IURy DEMAND: Ely.. n lo
vilr. RET.ATED CASE(S)
tS(( t\.rtn r'tit'ilt)
lF ANy .1UD(ill D(X]KET NUMBER
DATE
August 1 1, 2022
FOR OF}'ICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUN'I APPLYINC IT'P IUDCE MAC.,IUDGE

JS 44A REVISED June, 2009

]N THE IJNITIID STATES DISTRI]T COURII FOR THE WESTERN D]STRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1'H1S CASE DESIGNATION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED
PART A
rhi.s case belongs on rhe 1 Q nrie O Johnstown @pittsburgh) calendar.
1. ERIE CAIENDAR - If cause of action arose in the counties of Crawford, Elk, Erre,
Forest, McKean. Venang or Warren, OR any plaint.iff or defendant resides in one of said
counties.
2. JOHNSTOI{N CALENDAR - If cause of action arose in the counties of Bedford, Blair,
Cambria, Clearfield or Somerset oR any plaintiff or defendant resides in one of
said counties.
3. Complete if on ERIE CALENDAR: I certify that the cause of action arose in
County and that the resides in County.
{. Complete if on JoHNSlrolfN CaLENDAR: r certify that the cause of acti,on arose 1n
County and that the resides in County.
PART B (You are to check ONE of the following)
1. O Thls case is related to Numb,3r Short cap
2. O This case is noL rel aued a. ,, p.n.tJ-ng or Lerminated case.
DEF]NITIONS OF RELATED CASES:
crvrl: civil cases are deemed related when a case filed relates to property included in
another suit or involves the same issues of fact or it grows out of the same transactions
as another suit or involves the validity or infrrngemenL of a pat.ent i-nvolved in anocner
suit EMINENT DOMAIN: Cases in cont.iguous closely Iocated groups and in common ownership
groups which wiIl lend themselves to consolidation for triaf shall be deemed rel-ated.
HABEAS CORPUS &CIV-L RIGHTS: AII habeas corpus petitions filed by the same individual
shaLl be deemed related. AII pro se civil Rights actions by the same individual shall be
deemed related.
PARTC
I, CIVIL CATEGORY (Select the app]icable category) .
1.o Antit.rust and Securities Act Cases
2,O Labor-Maniigement Relations
3.o Habeas cor:pus
4.o CiviI Rights
s.o Patenc, C<>pyright, and Trademark
6.o Eminent l)omain
7.o AII other federaJ- question cases
8.o Arr personal and property damage tort cases, incruding maritime, FELA,
Jones Act, Motcr vehicle, products riabirity, assault, defamati-on, malicious
prosecut: on, and talse arrest
9. O Tncrrr:nna i nAamni
rrrqerLLrrr r'uyr contract and other diversity
caseS .
10. o Government Collection Cases (shaII incl_ude HEW Student Loans (Education),
V A 0verpayment, Overpayment of Socia.l- Security, Enl-istment
Overpayment (Army, Navy, etc. ) , HUD Loans, GAO Loans (Misc. Types) ,
Mortgage Foreclosures, SBA Loans, Civil penalties and Coal Mine
Penalty and Reclamation Fees.)
L cerLjfy thaL tc'Lhe best of my knowledge the entries on this Case DesiqnaLion
Sheet are true arrd correct
pulu, August11,2022 /s/Gwen R. Acker Wood
ATTORNEY AT LAW
NOTE: ALL SECTIONS OF BOTH FORMS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE CASE CAN BE PROCESSED.
EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:22-cv-00131-SLH Document 1-2 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 ofExhibit
2 1
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit 2
EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 4
Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 5
ACKER WOOD Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq." President

Anthony H. Handal, Esq., Of Counsel
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC
Exhibit 5
IP Assets Protection
C "tt,
February 9,2022
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED AND EMAIL

([email protected]
Netflix, Inc.
David Hyman, Chief Legal Officer
100 Winchester Circle
Los Gatos, CA 95032
[email protected]
RE: Unauthorized Use of Copvrishted Artwork "Ouarantine 2020"
Dear Mr. Hyman:
This firm represents Molly Cramer, popular tattoo artist and owner of Petals and Paint Tattoo
Parlor in connection with her intellectual property matters. It has come to our attention that Netflix,
Inc. ("Netflix") has published and displayed our client's artwork without her authorization, namely
a tattoo likeness of Joe Exotic (Joe Exotic's authorization to use his likeness for the Subject
Artwork is attached hereto as Exhibit A), titled "Quarantine 2020" ("Subject Artwork"), in the
streaming series "Tiger King" in its second season, episode 1 and in the trailer for the second
season of "Tiger King" ("the Tiger King Episode and Trailer"), which infringes on our client's
rights in her proprietary and copyrighted artwork. (The Subject Artwork at issue is attached hereto
as Exhibit B). Specifically, the Subject Artwork is shown about sixty seconds into the Tiger King
Episode and Trailer for about 3.0 seconds.
The Subject Artwork is protected under United States Copyright Registration No. VA-2285904,
registration date January 11,2022. Under United States copyright law, our client's copyright to
the Subject Artwork has been in legal effect since April 5,2020, the date that our client created
the Subject Artwork in a tangible medium.
Under 17 U.S.C. $$ 106 & 501, Netflix's unauthorized publication and display of the Subject
Artwork violate the United States Copyright Act, our client's rights, and subjects Netflix to
liability for copyright infringement. To succeed on her copyright infringement claim, our client
Phone: 412.486.1038 | Fax: 412.487.2837 | 4981 McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, PA 1523?

Email: [email protected] I www.ackerwoodiplaw.com
will "show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and ... demonstrate that the alleged
infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders;" see l7 U.S.C. $ 501(a)
(infringement occurs when alleged infringer engages in the activity listed in $ 106). These rights
include "the right to reproduce or distribute the material, and the right to prepare derivative works
from the Subject material." l7 U.S.C. g 106(l)-(3). Another is rhe exclusive right to "display the
Subject work publicly." l7 U.S.C. $ 106(5). It is clear that our client owns the material at issue,
and that Netflix, and/or its vendors and/or affiliates, unlawfully distributed and publicly displayed
copies of her work on the Tiger King Episode and Trailer without our client's permission. There
is little doubt that our client will prevail at trial should you force litigation of this case.
In addition, under l7 U.S.C. $ 504(b) "[t]he copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual
damages suffered ... as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are
attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.
ln establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the
infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and
the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the Subject work." We contend that Joe
Exotic's likeness depicted in the Subject Artwork, which is shown in the first minute of the Tiger
King Episode and Trailer not only contributes to viewers' interest in watching this episode, but the
Subject Artwork substantially contributes to the intrigue and mystique of the entire Tiger King
second season, and thus to the gross revenue reaped by Netflix lrom the streaming of the Tiger
King Episode and Trailer.
According to our research, Netflix had a gross profit ofover three billion dollars in the last quarter
of2021, oroverone billion dollars a month, and about 200 million subscribers. Inthe first twenty-
eight days of streaming the Tiger King Episode and Trailer it was viewed by over 64 million
households. If each household is considered a Netflix subscriber, this computes to over three
hundred million dollars ($300,000,000.00) for one month's viewing. We intend to seek damages
for the gross revenue reaped by Netflix attributed to the Tiger King Episode and Trailer in which
the Subject Artwork was used without our client's authorization.
Accordingly, to settle this matter expeditiously, we demand that Netflix ( I ) immediately cease and
desist all use of the Subject Artwork, including but not limited to deleting the Subject Artwork in
its entirety from the Tiger King Episode and Trailer; (2) provide the source from which Netflix
obtained the Subject Artwork, including, without limitation, any documents purporting to assign,
license, or transfer any rights in or to use the Subject Artwork; and (3) remit a settlement payment
in the amount of ten million dollars ($ 10,000,000.00) via cashier's check, made payable to the
undersigned, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of this letter to the undersigned's address
shown below.
We hope that this matter can be settled expeditiously to avoid the filing ofa copyright infringement
comnlaint in federal court bv our client asainst Netflix.
2of3
This is not a full recitation of all outstanding facts and legal issues, and nothing in this letter is
meant to or should be construed to waive or limit any rights, claims, or remedies.
Sincergly,
Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq

ACKER WOOD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW LLC
4981 Mclkight Road, P.O. Box 11096
Direct: (412) 486-1038
Email: [email protected]
3 of3
EXHIBIT 6
Exhibit
Case 3:22-cv-00131-SLH Document 1-7 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 6 6
February 23, 2022
BY EMAIL ATTACHMENT
Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD. Esq.
Acker Wood Intellectual Property Law LLC
4981 McKnight Road
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Re: “Tiger King Season 2” – Use of Molly Cramer’s Tattoo
Dear Ms. Wood,
We are litigation counsel to Royal Goode Productions, LLC (“RGP”), the producers of the
“Tiger King” documentary series (“Tiger King” or the “Series”). We are writing in response to your
firm’s cease and desist letter (the “Letter”), dated February 9, 2022.
We understand from your correspondence that the portrayal of the tattoo likeness of Joe
Exotic (“Tattoo”) in the Series for less than three seconds has caused your client some concern. It
seems that your client is under the impression that RGP’s use of the Tattoo amounts to copyright
infringement.
As explained below, the use of the Tattoo is transformative and non-commercial in nature
(as defined by law) and accordingly, does not infringe any rights of your client. For these reasons
we trust that you will understand why our clients will not adhere to your demands set forth in your
Letter, given that there is no legal basis for a claim.
FAIR USE DOCTRINE BARS CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
First, we encourage you to take into consideration the “Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement
of Best Practices in Fair Use” (the “Statement”)1. As noted in that Statement, reality-based uses, as
opposed to fictional or purely commercial uses, “usually satisfy the 'transformativeness' standard
[discussed below] easily, because copyrighted material is typically used in a context different from
that in which it originally appeared." Similar arguments apply to the use of the Tattoo in the Series,
as further explained below.
According to the Statement, the first class of use which should be considered fair use is to
employ copyright material as the object of social, political, or cultural critique. The Tattoo in the
Series is used to comment on the number and nature of the followers Joe Exotic has garnered
since season one of the Series. This commentary adds significant new value to the Tattoo (making
the use transformative). In short, the Series, comments on the global impact Joe Exotic has had in
the wake of the first season of Tiger King and looks at those who have attempted to associate
themselves with Joe Exotic’s global recognition, whether via social media, presidential pardon
campaigns or the displaying of body art. This segment addresses the fact that Joe Exotic has
1See https://cmsimpact.org/code/documentary-filmmakers-statement-of-best-practices-in-fair-
use/#:~:text=Principle%3A%20Fair%20use%20should%20protect,final%20version%20of%20the%20film.
Page 2 of 5
Gwen A. Acker Wood, PhD. Esq.
February 23, 2022
become social phenomenon, with a wide variety of people eager for some form of association with
the jailed felon.
With regard to the use of the Tattoo without authorization, as you are aware, the fair use
doctrine allows the use of copyright-protected materials without any permission from the copyright
holder. “The very point of fair use is that, in certain circumstance[s]... the law will not require... such
a license if it advances the overall goal of copyright — to create more works.” Hofheinz v. AMC
Prods., Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 127, 140 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Andy Warhol Found. for Visual Arts, Inc. v.
Goldsmith, No. 19-2420-CV, 2021 WL 3742835, at *4 (2d Cir. Aug. 24, 2021) (quoting Blanch v.
Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The fair use doctrine seeks to strike a balance between
an artist’s intellectual property rights to the fruits of her own creative labor...‘and the rest of us to
express them—or ourselves by reference to the works of others.’”). Accordingly, there is no
copyright infringement here.
It has been long established that a determination of fair use requires the consideration of the
following four mandatory but non-exclusive factors: 1) the “purpose and character” of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial nature; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the
“amount and substantiality” of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work, if any. 17 USC. §107.
Many courts consider the first factor, the assessment of the purpose and character of the
use, to be the most important. Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 174 (2d. Cir. 2001). "Central to
determining the purpose and character of a work is whether the new work merely supersedes the
original work, or instead adds something new with a further purpose or of a different character."
Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 2012), citing Campbell v.
Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 585 (1994) at 579. In other words, we should determine
whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Campbell at 579.
"Transformative works advance the goals of copyright law, and thus they are at the 'heart of
the fair use doctrine’s breathing space within the confines of copyright.' Examples of fair use include
social commentary, criticism, and news reporting." See Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Ctr.
for Bio-Ethical Reform, 868 F. Supp. 2d 962, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2012), citing Campbell at 578-579.
Here, RGP’s use of the Tattoo in the Series is transformative. The Tattoo takes on a new
meaning in the Series, different from what Ms. Cramer originally intended to convey. In the Series
the The Tattoo is used as a form of social commentary on the nature of celebrity and as a tangible
demonstration of the scale of Joe Exotic’s fame. The tattoo appears in a segment showing multiple
individuals publicly aligning themselves with Joe Exotic, demonstrating the staggering reach the first
series had, while illustrating the lengths that some people would go to be associated with Joe
Exotic. Accordingly, while RGP features exact copies of the Tattoo design, its purpose in displaying
the Tattoo is entirely different from the purpose for which the Tattoo was originally
created. The Tattoo’s expressive value is minimized (for less than three seconds). Moreover, the
Tattoo is not separately depicted. The Tattoo, combined with other auditory and visual elements
constitute very small portion of the Series. Accordingly, the Tattoo assumes, in the context of the
Series, a new context and significance, distinct from the original context and purpose. See e.g.,
Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 333, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), where use
of tattoos depicted on professional basketball players in a video game were transformative. In
granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court emphasized the transformative
nature of Defendant's use: Defendant only included the tattoos in the games to accurately portray
the players (“general recognizability” and not for “the [p]layers to express themselves through body
Page 3 of 5
February 23, 2022
art”), the tattoos make up a tiny fraction of the games, and the tattoos were not included in the
games for commercial reasons. See also, Hofheinz v. AMC, 147 F. Supp. 2d 127, 137 (E.D.N.Y.
2001) (“defendants' Documentary will likely be found to be ‘transformative’ on the trial of this matter;
it does not merely purport to supersede the original works at issue, but to create a new
copyrightable documentary”).
Further, when the allegedly infringing work matches the description of uses detailed in §107
preamble, such as commentary, criticism, or news reporting, then there is “strong presumption” that
first factor favors defendant. “Documentaries and biographies fall within the protected categories of
§107 and are entitled to the presumption the use of the copyrighted material is fair.” Hofheinz v.
Discovery Commc'ns, Inc., No. 00-CV-3802, 2001 WL 1111970, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001);
Monster Commc'ns, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting System, 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding
that a documentary about Muhammad Ali was a biography and therefore “undeniably constitute[d] a
combination of comment, scholarship and research, all of which enjoyed favored status under
§107”); Brown v. Netflix, Inc., 855 F. App'x 61, 62–63 (2d Cir. 2021) (court found a documentary's
unauthorized use of a song to be transformative and fair, where the song at issue there (of which
only eight seconds could be heard in the documentary) was used as part of the film's "commentary
on the burlesque art form and its resurgence in Portland, Oregon"). The documentary character of
the Series fits within uses identified by §107. Here, the Tattoo is used as part of a collage to
illustrate Joe exotic’s popularity, about which the Series was commenting, and the Tattoo can be
seen only briefly and in passing. See Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) (contemporary
artist Jeff Koons’ use of fashion photographer’s image in a collaged painting was sufficiently
transformative).
The first fair use factor also asks whether the secondary work is commercial. Regarding the
commerciality of the intended use, the fact that the producers, distributors and broadcasters of the
Series may profit economically is not dispositive. In Campbell, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: “If,
indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption
would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of §107, including
news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities are
generally conducted for profit in this country.” 510 US at 584 (internal quotes and citations omitted).
“The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like
commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 708
(2d Cir. 2013) citing Campbell at 579.
Accordingly, the for-profit nature of the Series does not weigh against the use of the Tattoo
being fair use. The highly transformative use of the Tattoo makes the nature of the Series even less
significant. For all the above reasons, the Series is entitled to presumption in favor of fair use under
the first factor.
The second fair use factor looks to the nature of the copyrighted work used and “calls for
recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others.”
Hofheinz v. AMC Prods., Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 127, 138 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), citing Campbell at 586. As
a general proposition, published works enjoy less fair use protection than those that have never
been published. See Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 612 (2d Cir.
2006) (“the second factor may be of limited usefulness where the creative work of art is being used
for a transformative purpose.” (citing Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586)).
Page 4 of 5
February 23, 2022
Since the use of the Tattoo passes the transformative test, as discussed in our analysis of the
first factor, and consists of previously published material that might arguably be creative in nature,
the elements in the second factor of the fair use analysis does not assist your claim.
The third factor involved in assessing a fair use defense is the “amount and substantiality” of
the portion(s) used. This factor “has both a quantitative and qualitative element to it.” Hofheinz v.
Discovery Communications, Inc., 2001 WL 1111970 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), quoting Wright v.
Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731, 738 (2d. Cir. 1991). This inquiry must consider that the “extent of
the permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use.” Bill Graham Archives v.
Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 613 (2d Cir. 2006), citing Campbell at 586-587. So once
again, to determine the weight of this factor, the purpose and character of the use is relevant.
This factor leans in favor of the Series in every aspect. The Tattoo is used in the Series for a
very short period of time, less than three seconds. Ultimately, the “fair use copier must copy no
more than is reasonably necessary... to enable him to pursue an aim that the law recognizes as
proper,” such as “the aim of criticizing the copyrighted work effectively.” See Brownmark Films, LLC
v. Comedy Partners, 800 F. Supp. 2d 991, 1000 (E.D. Wis. 2011) aff’d, 682 F 3d 687 (7th Cir.
2012), citing Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624, 629. Therefore, the portrayal of
the Tattoo in the Series is no more than is reasonably necessary to establish the popularity of Joe
Exotic and to comment on the nature of his fame.
Further, the Tattoo appears as part of a collage of multiple images to convey a distinct
meaning, message and character – rather than merely offering a simple reproduction. The Tattoo is
“not displayed with sufficient detail for the average lay observer to identify even the subject matter
of the [Tattoo], much less the style used in creating them.” Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games,
Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 333, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ( Defendants moved for summary judgment,
asserting their use of the tattoos was de minimis and thus unactionable. The Court agreed,
concluding that the amount of the copyrightable work that was copied and the observability of the
copyrightable work was so trivial. “The undisputed factual record shows that average game play is
unlikely to include the players with the tattoos and that, even such players are included, the display
of the tattoos is small and indistinct, appearing as rapidly moving visual features of rapidly moving
figures in groups of player figures[.]”). Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that even taking
the “heart” of a copyrighted work does not preclude a finding of fair use. Campbell at 588-89; see
also Brownmark at 693 (holding that copying did not become excessive merely because the portion
taken was the original’s heart).
The fourth and final factor is the effect, if any, of the allegedly fair use on the potential market
for or value of the copyright-protected work. The Court in Hofheinz stated as follows: “The alleged
infringing clips ‘are too few, too short, and too small in relation to the whole’ to undercut the market
for the plaintiff’s copyrighted works.” The use of the Tattoo in an episode of the Series is similarly
too short and too small to damage the market for your client’s work. On the contrary, the portrayal of
the Tattoo in the Series is likely to increase the market demand for Ms. Cramer’s Tattoo, as a new
audience is introduced to it. See Nunez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18, 25 (1st Cir.
2000).
Additionally, the transformative nature of the secondary work also comes into play in the
determination of the fourth factor. Generally, if the secondary use is significantly transformative, it
will not impinge on a market available to the copyright holder and is therefore more likely to be a fair
Page 5 of 5
February 23, 2022
use. See Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 12 CIV. 1087 DLC, 2013 WL 1153979
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013) (“After all, ‘[c]opyright holders rarely write parodies of their own works or
write reviews of them”) (internal citation omitted).
In conclusion, the use of the Tattoo is protected by the fair use defense, because, on
balance, the “transformative” nature of the use conclusively pushes all of the factors towards a
finding of fair use. Also, a finding of fair use here would further the ultimate purpose of copyright
law, which is not to restrict creativity, but rather to promote the flourishing of new creative works. 2
We trust that in view of the above, you will advise your client accordingly.
Please also note that this letter does not contain a complete statement of our clients' position
in this or any other matter, nor does it constitute a waiver of any of our clients' legal or equitable
rights, all of which are expressly reserved. If you have any further questions or concerns not
addressed above, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Anthony Doherty
[email protected]
2 See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8; Hofheinz v. AMC Prods., Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 127, 140 (E.D.N.Y.
2001); Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, 868 F. Supp. 2d 962, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2012),
citing Campbell at 578-579.
EXHIBIT 7
ACKER WOOD Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq., President

Anthony H. Handalo Esq., Of Counsel
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC
GIobaI IP Asscts protoetion

Exhibit 7
C
March 16,2022
VIA EMAIL ATTACHMENT
Anthony Doherty
SMITHDEHN LLP
100 Park Avenue, 16th Floor
New York. NY 10017
Re: "Tiqer Kinq Season 2:" Unauthorized Use of Copvriqhted Artwork "Quarantine 2020"
Dear Mr. Doherty:
We are in receipt of your response letter, dated February 23,2022 (the "Letter"), to our
cease and desist letter, dated February 9, 2022, regarding the above-identified matter. We
strongly disagree with your contention that the Fair Use Doctrine bars our claim that Royal Goode
Productions, LLC ('RGP'), the producers of the "Tiger King" documentary series ("Tiger King
Series") infringed the copyrighted Joe Exotic "Quarantine 2020" tattoo artwork ("Joe Exotic Tattoo"
or the "Artwork") created by our client, Molly Cramer ("our client") by using the Joe Exotic Tattoo
in the Tiger King Series.
Your main argument with respect to the Fair Use Doctrine is that RGP's use of the Joe
Exotic Tattoo is transformative, and thus does not infringe any rights of our client. You then
encourage us to take into consideration the "Documentary Filmmaker's Statement of Best
Practices in Fair Use," which states, in pertinent part, "[d]id the unlicensed use 'transform'the
material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than the original, or
did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?"'
Your assefiion that the Joe Exotic Tattoo is transformative and thus does not infringe any
rights of our client could not be further from the truth. In fact, our client created the Joe Exotic
Tattoo for the exact same purpose that it was used by RGP in the Tiger King Series, namely,
to exploit Joe Exotic's popularity, global recognition, and the fact that he has become a social
phenomenon.
Some background of the genesis of the Joe Exotic Tattoo is in order to substantiate our
contention that RGP's use of the Artwork was for the very same purpose, intent and value as that
of our client. ln 2020, in an attempt to raise money due to the closing of both our client's and her
husband's businesses due to the Covid-19 pandemic, our client's husband came up with the idea
of selling gift certificates online, whereby purchasers of the gift certificates would vote on which
one of several funny tattoo pictures created by our client would be tattooed on our client's
husband's thigh by our client. Both our client and her husband were viewers of the Tiger King
Series and were familiar with Joe Exotic and his fame, popularity and global recognition, and thus
Phone:412.486.1038 | Fax: 412.487.283? | 4gSl McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, PA f5237

Email: [email protected] I www.ackerwoodiplaw.com
Anthony Doherty
March 13,2022
2of4
one of the tattoo pictures created by our client was a likeness of Joe Exotic because of his
popularity, fame and global recognition. Our client believed that including Joe Exotic as one
of the funny tattoo pictures would garner a very large response to the sale of the gift certificates
because of his fame and popularity.
In fact, our client raised over $3000.00 in gift certificates and the tattoo picture that won
the vote by a large margin was the image of Joe Exotic with a Lysol can, a toilet paper banner,
covid spores, and entitled "Quarantine 2020." Our client tattooed the Joe Exotic Tattoo on her
husband in April, 2020 and posted the Joe Exotic Tattoo the same day on her Facebook page.
Further, as you rightly state, the first factor, and the one many courts consider the most
important, which is considered in determining fair use of copyrighted material is "the purpose and
character" of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature. There is no doubt
that the purpose and character of the Joe Exotic Tattoo was to create a likeness of a popular,
globally recognized celebrity, and that the use by RGP of the Joe Exotic Tattoo merely
supersedes the original work and does not add something new with a further purpose or a
different character. Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners,682 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir
2012), citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, \nc.,510 U.S. 569, 585 (1994) at 579. Indeed, in
your Letter you admit that "[i]n the Tiger King Series the [sic] The Tattoo is used [ ] as a tangible
demonstration of the scale of Joe Exotic's fame." lt is therefore clear that the Joe Exotic Tattoo
is not being used by RGP for a transformative purpose, but rather is being used for the exact
same purpose it was created for by our client.
The second fair use factor, which elements you allege do not "assist our claim" because
you have concluded, erroneously, that "the Tattoo passes the transformation test," looks to the
nature of the copyrighted work. In this regard, courts tend to give greater protection to creative
works, as courts usually are more protective of art, music, poetry, feature films, and other creative
works than they are of nonfiction works, and thus fair use applies more broadly to nonfiction than
fiction. Although the Joe Exotic Tattoo was published, we have no doubt that the elements of the
second fair use factor would "assist our claim." Also, the fact that you question whether the Joe
Exotic Tattoo is a creative work by stating in your Letter "materialthat might arguably be creative
in nature" (emphasis added) is disingenuous at best.
The third fair use factor involves assessment of the "amount and substantiality" of the
portion of the copyrighted material which is used. According to the courts, it is axiomatic that the
more an alleged infringer uses the copyrighted material, the less likely the alleged infringer is
within fair use with respect to the third fair use factor. Additionally, courts have ruled that even
small amounts of use may be excessive if they take the "heart of the work."
In your Letter, you state that "[t]he Tattoo is used in the Tiger King Series for a very short
period of time, less than three seconds," and that "[t]he Tattoo is 'not displayed with sufficient
detail for the average lay observer to identify even the subject matter of the [Tattoo], much less
the style used in creating them."' To this end, you cite So/rd Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games,
|nc.,449 F. Supp.3d 333,348 (S.D.N.Y.2020), where use of tattoos depicted on professional
basketball players in a video game were held to be fair use by the defendant. This case, however,
is inapposite to RGB's use of the Joe Exotic Tattoo in the Tiger King Series. In So/rd Oak
Sketches, the tattoos were "small and indistinct" and appeared "as rapidly moving visualfeatures
of rapidly moving figures in groups of player figures." /d. In the Tiger King Series, the image of
the Joe Exotic Tattoo, although shown for a short time, is distinct and shown clearly and in its
entirety, i.e., not just the "heart of the work" is used, and the image is stationary and not moving
Anthony Doherty
March 13,2022
3ot4
for the time it is shown. Further, your assertion that an average lay observer would not be able
to identify even the subject matter of the tattoo because it is not displayed in sufficient detail is
completely incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that our client first found out that her Joe Exotic
Tattoo was being used in the Tiger King Series from many friends and family who contacted her
after seeing the Joe Exotic Tattoo on the Tiger King Serles.
The fourth fair use factor involves the effect of the use on the potential market for or value
of thework. In your Letter, you allege that "[t]he use of the Tattoo in an episode of the Tiger King
Series is similarly too short and too small to damage the market for your client's work." You go
on to allege that, "[o]n the contrary, the portrayal of the Tattoo in the Tiger King Series is likely to
increase the market demand for Ms. Cramer's Tattoo, as a new audience is introduced to it." In
fact, the exact opposite has been the case. Because our client did not receive attribution for the
use of the Joe Exotic Tattoo by RGP, the public erroneously is being led to believe that RGP
created or owns the Artwork, and thus this unauthorized use has had and is having an adverse
market effect for our client's Artwork.
Further, the fourth fair use factor includes determining whether an alleged infringer could
have realistically purchased or licensed the copyrighted work and if so, that fact weighs against a
finding of fair use. We contend that RGP and Netflix could have purchased or licensed the Joe
Exotic Tattoo from our client, but instead used it without our client's authorization and without
considering her rights. In addition, if an alleged infringer's purpose for using the copyrighted work
is commercial, as your use undoubtedly is, an adverse market effect is easier to prove. In your
Letter, you state that "the transformative nature of the secondary work also comes into play [.. . ]
in that "if the secondary use is significantly transformative, it will not impinge on a market available
to the copyright holder and is therefore more likely to be a fair use." Because we contend that
RGP's use of the Joe Exotic Tattoo was not a transformative secondary use of the Artwork at all,
but rather a use that merely supersedes the original work and does not add something new with
a further purpose or a different character, this strengthens our contention that RGP's alleged
infringement of our client's Artwork cannot be defended under the fair use doctrine and has had
and is having an adverse market effect for the Artwork.
Based on the foregoing, we reiterate our demands that Netflix: (1) immediately cease and
desist all use of the Joe Exotic Tattoo in the Tiger King Series and in the Tiger King Trailer; (2)
provide the source from which Netflix obtained the Joe Exotic Tattoo, including, without limitation,
any documents purporting to assign, license, or transfer any rights in or to the Joe Exotic Tattoo;
and (3) remit a settlement payment in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) via
cashier's check, made payable to the undersigned, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
this letter to the undersigned's address shown below.
Please be advised that failure to meet these demands in the stated time shall result in our
filing a complaint for Copyright Infringement in federal court against RGP and Netflix for the
unauthorized use of our client's Joe Exotic Tattoo Artwork in the Tiger King Series.
Anthony Doherty
March 13,2022
4of4
This is not a full recitation of all outstanding facts and legal issues, and nothing in this letter
is meant to or should be construed to waive or limit any rights, claims, or remedies.
Sincerely,
Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq.

4981 McKnight Road
P.O. Box 11096
Direct: (412) 486-1038
Fax: (412) 487-2837
Email : [email protected]
EXHIBIT 8
Exhibit 8
March 30, 2022
BY MAIL ATTACHMENT
4981 McKnight Road
P.O. Box 11096
Dear Ms. Wood,
Thank you for your second letter (the “Letter”), dated March 9, 2022.
While we appreciate your further explanation of your client’s position as set out in the
Letter, we respectfully disagree with your contention that the brief inclusion of a tattoo
likeness of Joe Exotic (the “Tattoo”) in a montage segment in the Netflix Series “Tiger King
2” (the “Series”) made by our clients, Royal Goode Productions LLC (the “Producers”) does
not qualify as fair use under U.S. copyright law.
The Producers’ use of the Tattoo is not, as you claim, for one and the same purpose
as your client’s Tattoo. The Producers are makers of a factual documentary television
series and are directly commenting on the impact of the first season of Tiger King and the
various ways people have tried to attach themselves to that popularity. To that end they
have created a montage of images, graphic effects and sounds, which show the
remarkable lengths that some people will go to claim some association with the Series,
even to the extent of permanently marking themselves with the image of a person they
know only through a TV series. Your client’s work is shown as one of many who have
attempted to garner attention by association with the first series of Tiger King. There is
simply no arguable case that your client created the Tattoo to make social comments on
the success of a TV series while at the same time critiquing their and multiple other’s
attempts to profit from that success. To the best of our knowledge, your client is not a
documentary filmmaker, and she does not have a record of using her art for social
commentary. She did not create a montage of various Tiger King fans and fanatics to
comment and reflect upon the scale of the Tiger King phenomena and to question the
motivation behind the hero worship of a man convicted of attempted murder for hire and
multiple acts of animal cruelty. Your client simply cannot claim to be fulfilling the same
purpose as the Series, just because she created a Tattoo that featured Joe Exotic and
refers to the Covid pandemic. She is not recapping and furthering the Tiger King story for
the audience. She is not commenting on the Series, it’s global impact, or the masses of
people jumping on the Tiger King bandwagon.
Page 2 of 5
March 30, 2022
In the Tattoo segment (the Tattoo never appeared in any trailers or teasers for the
Series), the Producers clearly are recapping the Tiger King Story so far and commenting on
your client’s (and many others) motives. “[B]iographies in general, and critical biographies
in particular, fit ‘comfortably within’ these statutory categories ‘of uses illustrative of uses
that can be fair.’” New Era Pubs v. Carol Publ’g Group, 904 F.2d 152, 156 (2d Cir. 1990).
“[B]iographies, of course, are fundamentally personal histories and it is both reasonable
and customary for biographers to refer to and utilize earlier works dealing with the subject
of the work and occasionally to quote directly from such works.” Maxtone-Graham v.
Burtchaell 803 F.2d 1253, 1263 (2d Cir. 1986). We cannot see how the intent behind your
client’s work bears any similarity whatsoever to the use of the Tattoo in the Series when the
segment is specifically a comment on her work. See In re DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena
to YouTube (Google, Inc.), No. 7:18-MC-00268 (NSR), 2022 WL 160270, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 18, 2022) (“What matters is that [Movant] used the [works] to express ‘something new,
with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning,
or message.”); see also Katz v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 1178, 1183 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The
use of a copyrighted work need not alter or augment the work to be transformative in
nature.”)
Recently the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York considered the issue of
transformativeness in relation to items of visual art and reached the following illuminating
conclusions:
“The secondary work itself must reasonably be perceived as embodying a distinct

artistic purpose, one that conveys a new meaning or message separate from its source
material. While we cannot, nor do we attempt to, catalog all of the ways in which an artist
may achieve that end, we note that the works that have done so thus far have themselves
been distinct works of art that draw from numerous sources, rather than works that simply
alter or recast a single work with a new aesthetic.” Andy Warhol Found. for Visual Arts, Inc.
v. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th 26, 41 (2d Cir. 2021.) Here, the Producers have incorporated a
multitude of different images, added new audio and incorporated visual effects in order to
create something entirely new and distinct. This is no mere repetition of the original in
isolation. The segment is a montage that deals with the whole Tiger King story thus far,
from Joe Exotic’s incarceration, Tik-Tok dance routines, attempted presidential pardons,
Carole Baskin murder conspiracists, and even those who would decorate themselves
permanently with the face of a known felon just to be part of this story. We find none of
these purposes in your client’s work. There is nothing in the context, execution or purpose
of the Producers’ use of the Tattoo and the creation of this segment that is not
transformative.
With regard to the second factor, your Letter seems to suggest that documentary
films and their use of unlicensed materials, are not among the artforms protected by the fair
use defense, and that a preference is given for other art forms over the documentary form.
This is very far from the truth. “In general, fair use is more likely to be found in factual works
than in fictional works. See 3 Nimmer § 13.05[A], pp. 13–77 to 13–78 (“[A]pplication of the
fair use defense [is] greater ... in the case of factual works than in the case of works of
fiction or fantasy”); cf. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539,
Page 3 of 5
March 30, 2022
563, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 2232 (1985) (“The law generally recognizes a greater need to
disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy”); Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S.
207, 237–38, 110 S. Ct. 1750, 1769 (1990) (In general, fair use is more likely to be found in
factual works than in fictional works.”). As the Series is factual and the Tattoo has been
published before, the second factor weighs heavily in the Producers’ favor. See Kelly v.
Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 820 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Published works are more likely to
qualify for fair use because the first appearance of the artist's expression has already
occurred.”) and Harper & Row, 471 U.S. 539, 564 (1985)
Turning to the third factor, namely the amount and substantiality of the use. As you
know the use of an entire copyrighted work is permissible under fair use provided it is
necessary for its intended purpose. See Caner v. Autry, 16 F. Supp. 3d 689, 713 (W.D. Va.
2014) (defendant's use of entire copyrighted video was necessary to fulfill his
transformative purpose of pointing out contradictions.). In fact, the very nature of an image
such as the Tattoo means that it must be used in its entirety. See Seltzer v. Green Day,
Inc., 725 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Scream Icon [a drawing of a screaming,
contorted face] is not meaningfully divisible. Given that fact, this court has acknowledged
that this factor will not weigh against an alleged infringer, even when he copies the whole
work, if he takes no more than is necessary for his intended use”). See also, Am. Soc'y of
Cinematographers, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. Howard Schatz, et al., Defendants.
Howard Schatz, et al., Counterclaimants, No. 220CV08607ODWJCX, 2021 WL 4352302, at
*4 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2021) (a photograph as opposed to a song or an episode of a
television show is not meaningfully divisible; hence the use of an entire photograph was
construed necessary to achieve its intended purpose); Divine Dharma Meditation Int'l Inc.
v. Inst. of Latent Energy Stud., No. SA CV 16-00226-DFM, 2019 WL 13036416, at *4 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 1, 2019), aff'd, No. 19-55264, 2021 WL 3721438 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2021.) (“with
respect to images or photographs, [ ] all or most of the work often must be used in order to
preserve any meaning”). There seems very little way for the Producers to point out the
extremes that individuals will go to gain some attention by association with the Series, than
to clearly show that such individuals have permanently marked their body with the image of
a convicted criminal.
On the subject of the fourth factor, we have searched the relevant case law and
have found nothing that supports your claim that the ability to license and a failure to do so
is fatal to a fair use defense. In fact, the caselaw on the fourth factor indicates that because
the appearance of the Tattoo in a documentary television series is directed at a vastly
different audience from the fixing of an image in ink on an individual’s skin, it is unlikely to
affect any market for your client’s work. We can see no meaningful or significant effect
caused by the Producers’ use “upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.” Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 224 (2d Cir. 2015). Therefore, contrary
to your claims, the fourth factor strongly favors the Producers. There can be no serious
argument that your client’s potential customers would decide to forego a tattoo of Joe
Exotic in favor of watching three seconds of the Series. See O'Neil v. Ratajkowski, No. 19
CIV. 9769 (AT), 2021 WL 4443259, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2021) (the fourth factor
analyzes whether the copy brings to the marketplace a competing substitute for the
original) See also, Red Label Music Publ'g, Inc. v. Chila Prods., 388 F. Supp. 3d 975, 986-
Page 4 of 5
March 30, 2022
988 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Given the above, we are convinced that the use of the Tattoo is
transformative; that all four fair use factors strongly favor the Producers’ position; and that
your client’s claim is without merit.
Finally, your Letter makes a demand for the immediate payment of ten million
dollars. Given this figure, we assume that you intend to pursue actual damages in court. If
that is the case, your client would therefore need to prove lost profits, the value of a license
fee and loss of goodwill and future sales to that extent. Given that a standard license fee for
an item of this duration would be less than $500 and that you have referenced a total of
$3,000 generated from the sale of tokens, not the Tattoo itself, there seems to be a
substantial shortfall in any calculation of actual damages. You have attempted to fill this
shortfall with a calculation based on Netflix gross revenue. Your client’s claimed damages
have no nexus to the gross revenue of Netflix. The portrayal of the Tattoo in the Series, in a
small section of the screen alongside numerous other items, for less than three seconds,
has no connection to Netflix’s profits or gross revenue. The Series is only one of thousands
of shows on Netflix and this episode makes up less than 1 hour of the tens of thousands of
hours and millions of minutes of entertainment available on this platform. Additionally, your
client’s work appears on screen with seven other items. This miniscule appearance can
hardly be seen as having any association with Netflix profits. Your client cannot show a
reasonable link between the alleged copyright infringement and Netflix’s revenue such that
a court would contemplate awarding damages on anything approximating the scale you
demand. See On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2001), as amended
(May 15, 2001) (the court found that “gross revenue” under the statute means gross
revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not unrelated revenues.) See also,
Alexander v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 3d 812, 823 (S.D. Ill. 2020)
quoting Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 709, 710(7th Cir. 2016). (at a minimum, the plaintiff
must prove a causal connection or nexus between the infringement and defendant's gross
revenues); Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003)
(where there is “no conceivable connection between the infringement and the claimed
revenues,” Bouchat demands that summary judgment must be granted in favor of the
alleged infringer.)
We trust that in view of the above, you will advise your client accordingly and
withdraw this claim.
Please also note that this letter does not contain a complete statement of the
Producers' position in this or any other matter, nor does it constitute a waiver of any of the
Producers' legal or equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved. If you have any
further questions or concerns not addressed above, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Anthony Doherty
Page 5 of 5
March 30, 2022
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 9
ACKER WOOD Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq.o President
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW" LLC Anthony H. Handal, Esq., Of Counsel
Gbbal Ip Assets protection

Exhibit 9
C
April29,2Q22
VIA EMAIL ATTACHMENT
Anthony Doherty
SMITHDEHN LLP
100 Park Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10017
RE: "Tiqer Kinq Season 2:" Unauthorized Use of Copvriqhted Artwork "Quarantine 2020"
Dear Mr. Doherty:
We are in receipt of your second letter, dated March 30,2022, in response to our letter
dated March 9,2022.
We reiterate again our strong disagreement with your allegation that the Fair Use Doctrine
bars our client, Molly Cramer ("our client") from claiming copyright infringement by Royal Goode
Productions, LLC ("RGP') when it featured her copyrighted Joe Exotic "Quarantin e 2Q20" tattoo
artwork (the "Artwork") in a segment of the Netflix series "Tiger King 2."
Further, we reiterate our strong disagreement with your allegation that RGP's use of the
Artwork was transformative, and thus qualifies as fair use under copyright law. Your contention
that RGP incorporated a multitude of different images, added new audio and incorporated visual
effects in order to create something entirely new and distinct, and is no mere repetition of the
original in isolation, is disingenuous at best. Although the Artwork was used in conjunction with
other film clips, such use did not in any way alter the Artwork's primary meaning or message,
which was, and still is, to highlight, and thus exploit, Joe Exotic's popularity, global recognition,
and the fact that he has become a social phenomenon in spite of his notoriety and proven
criminality.
We contend that the Artwork, which has been used by RGP as a "secondary work," cannot
reasonably be perceived as embodying a distinct artistic purpose which conveys a meaning or
message separate from the Artwork's primary meaning and message as stated above. Indeed,
we contend that the distinctive artistic purpose of RGP's use of the Artwork which you allege is to
comment and reflect upon the scale of the Tiger King phenomena, its global impact, the number
of people jumping on the Tiger King bandwagon (i.e. Joe Exotic's popularity), and to question the
motivation behind the hero worship of a convicted criminal, is almost, if not exactly, identical to
the Artwork's primary meaning and message as stated above.
Phone:412.486.1038 | Fax: 412.'187.2837 | 49SL McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, PA IS23?

Email: grwood@ackerwoodipla!|'.com I www.ackerwoodipraw.com
Anthony Doherty
April29,2Q22
2of2
Therefore' notwithstanding thtl many arguments you have presented
in an attempt to rebut
our client's claim of copyright infringement of her Artwoik by RGp, we stronjly
believe that there
can be no conclusion other than the fact that RGP has used our client's cipyrignted
Artwork in
the Tiger King Series 2 without her arlthorization, that RGP's use does
not quafif' under fair use
under copyright law, that RGP's use of the Artwork is not transformative, and
thus RGp can be
held liable for copyright infringement in a court of law.
In an attempt to settle this matter fairly for all parties involved so as to avoid a protracted
lawsuit, we are amending our settlement demand down to $50,000.00 (fifty thousand
dollars). We
hope that your client will see the wi:sdom in accepting this setilement offer, and ask
that you
respond to us accordingly within ten days from the receipt of this letter, or by May g,2o2Z. please
be advised that if we do not hear from you by this date, we shall proceed tlo commence
a lawsuit
in federal court.
This is not a full recitation of all outstanding facts and legal issues, and nothing in this letter
is meant to or should be construed to waive or limit any rights, claims, or remedies.
Sincerely,
Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq.

4981 McKnight Road
Direct: (412) 486-1038
Fax: (412) 487-2837
Email : grwood@ackenvoodiplaw. com
EXHIBIT 10
Exhibit 10
May 6, 2022
BY MAIL ATTACHMENT
4981 McKnight Road
P.O. Box 11096
Dear Ms. Wood,
On behalf of our clients, Royal Goode Productions, we are writing in response to your letter,
dated April 29, 2022.
We continue to disagree with your allegation that our clients’ use of the image of Ms.
Cramer’s tattoo is an infringement of your client’s copyright and are confident that there exists no
legal basis for an allegation of copyright infringement in this case.
Given the above, we see no reason why any payment should be made to your client. If your
client does decide to pursue this matter through the courts, please inform them that we intend to
move for dismissal or summary judgment at the earliest date possible and that we will seek
attorney’s fees and costs from your client.
This letter does not contain a complete statement of our clients' position in this or any other
matter, nor does it constitute a waiver of any of our clients' legal or equitable rights, all of which are
expressly reserved.
Sincerely,
Tony Doherty
[email protected]

Cramer v. Netflix - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cramer v. Netflix - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cramer v. Netflix - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:22-cv-00131-SLH Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. Plaintiff Molly Cramer (“Ms. Cramer”) is a citizen of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, residing in Friedens, Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

2. Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Los Gatos, California.

3. Defendant Royal Goode Productions, LLC (“Royal Goode”) is a New York

5. Venue is proper in the United States District Court of Western Pennsylvania

occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Defendants engaged in copyright

Parlor” located in Somerset, Pennsylvania.

7. On information and belief, Netflix is a Delaware corporation, having its principal

subscription-based over-the-top streaming media services of a library of films and television

and Madness” (“the Tiger King Series”).

currently is streaming on Netflix.

the gift certificates.

Exhibit 1 attached hereto, which is the subject of this action.

copy of the copyright registration is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

attribution to Ms. Cramer.

of the Joe Exotic tattoo as originating with Defendants.

Defendants’ benefit and subsequent profits, without any cost to Defendants.

damages are extremely difficult to ascertain.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright Infringement Against Defendants)

though fully set forth herein.

39. The above-described conduct by Defendants constitutes willful copyright

infringement under the Copyright Act.

damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

included as part of Ms. Cramer’s damages, plus attorney’s fees.

Defendants’ wrongful actions, plus attorney’s fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. A finding that Defendants unauthorized use of Ms. Cramer’s copyrighted Joe

2. An order by the Court immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, its

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies,

duplicating, selling, licensing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using without authorization

respective copyright based thereon.

statutory damages for Defendants’ willful and intentional copyright infringement.

6. For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in the maximum amount

Dated: August 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Gwen R. Acker Wood

4981 McKnight Road

Attorney for Plaintiff Molly Cramer

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: August 11, 2022 /s/Gwen R. Acker Wood

Attorney for Plaintiff Molly Cramer

RECEIPT # AMOUN'I APPLYINC IT'P IUDCE MAC.,IUDGE

JS 44A REVISED June, 2009

pulu, August11,2022 /s/Gwen R. Acker Wood

ACKER WOOD Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq." President

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED AND EMAIL

RE: Unauthorized Use of Copvrishted Artwork "Ouarantine 2020"

Dear Mr. Hyman:

Phone: 412.486.1038 | Fax: 412.487.2837 | 4981 McKnight Road, Pittsburgh, PA 1523?

Gwen R. Acker Wood, PhD, Esq

February 23, 2022

Re: “Tiger King Season 2” – Use of Molly Cramer’s Tattoo

Dear Ms. Wood,