Studio James Brazil v. Related Urban — Design Copyright Claim Fails for Lack of Proof of Use

Background

Architecture and design studio Studio James Brazil alleged that Related Urban Construction hired it for several community-development projects in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood and later displayed its registered Liberty Roots Market designs without authorization. The complaint asserted copyright infringement and four contract claims.

Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder recommended summary judgment for Related Urban on every count. No party objected, and District Judge Darrin Gayles adopted the recommendation after reviewing it for clear error.

The Court’s Holding

Related Urban was entitled to summary judgment on the copyright claim because the studio did not produce evidence that the defendant, or anyone acting on its behalf, reproduced or displayed the registered designs. A vague assertion that Related Urban or affiliated entities used the work did not identify which entity acted or establish that an affiliate’s conduct could be attributed to the defendant. Corporate affiliation alone was not enough.

The court also enforced the consequences of the studio’s discovery failures. Documents first submitted with the summary-judgment opposition were excluded because they were responsive to earlier requests but had not been produced, and reopening discovery would not cure the expense and delay. In the alternative, statutory damages and attorney fees were unavailable because the alleged infringement began before registration and more than three months after first publication.

The contract claims independently failed for lack of a contract with Related Urban and lack of damages. The studio’s disclosed damages theory relied on unpaid invoices, but the undisputed evidence showed that all twenty-six invoices issued to other Related affiliates had been paid. New agency and damages theories raised during summary-judgment briefing came too late.

Key Takeaways

• Copyright ownership does not establish infringement; the plaintiff still must connect reproduction or display of the work to the named defendant.
• Conduct by a corporate affiliate is not automatically attributable to another entity without evidence of agency or action on its behalf.
• Evidence withheld during discovery may be excluded at summary judgment when the nondisclosure is neither justified nor harmless.
• Section 412 can bar statutory damages and attorney fees when infringement begins before registration and outside the three-month post-publication window.

Why It Matters

The decision is a practical warning for design professionals working through informal relationships among affiliated development companies. Registration protects the work, but an infringement case still requires evidence identifying who used it, while contract recovery depends on documenting the contracting entity, promised payment, and a timely disclosed damages calculation.

Full Opinion

The PDF combines the adopted report and recommendation with the final order.