Sophia Parker Studios v. Temperley — Pre-Registration Instagram Post Bars Statutory Damages Against Romo Defendants

Background

Sophia Parker Studios, Inc. says it created a sculptural artwork titled “Memphis Chainsaw,” four published photographs of that sculpture, a second sculpture called “Zig Zag Palm Lines,” and a photograph of it. It sued several defendants, including fashion brand Temperley London and a group of related Romo companies (Romo Ltd., Romo (Holdings) Ltd., Romo, Inc. and Romo Group Ltd., the “Romo Defendants”), for copyright infringement. According to the complaint, the Romo Defendants and the Temperley London defendants launched a joint interiors collection in or around March 2023 that used the artwork on fabrics and cushions. The complaint also says the Romo Defendants displayed advertising photographs, videos and posts depicting the allegedly infringing products on their website and in their showrooms.

The registration dates matter. Plaintiff alleges the sculpture was registered effective February 28, 2023, its photographs were registered effective April 27, 2023 and November 4, 2024, and the second sculpture and its photograph were registered in February 2026. In an earlier ruling dated November 25, 2025, the court declined to dismiss the statutory damages and fee claims against two of the Romo entities because the pleading then showed the Romo infringement beginning in March 2023, after the sculpture’s registration. Plaintiff later filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the Romo Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) on the claims for statutory damages and attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the motion. Under 17 U.S.C. § 412, a copyright owner generally cannot recover statutory damages or attorney’s fees for infringement that began after first publication of the work but before the effective date of registration, unless registration was made within three months of first publication. Under Sixth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Jones), infringement “commences” for this purpose when the first act in a series of continuing infringing acts occurs.

What changed was the Second Amended Complaint. It now alleged that the “Unauthorized Advertising Works” shown in two exhibits contain unauthorized reproductions of the protected works, are substantially similar to them, and are infringing derivative works. One of those exhibits includes an Instagram post from the @romo_fabrics account dated February 24, 2023, announcing the Temperley London x Romo collection at London Design Week. Taking plaintiff at its word, the court reasoned that the Romo Defendants therefore began infringing before any of plaintiff’s registrations took effect, so § 412 bars statutory damages and fees.

Plaintiff’s counterarguments failed. First, plaintiff argued that the February 24 post was too trivial to count, invoking the de minimis defense, which the Sixth Circuit recognizes when copying falls below the threshold of substantial similarity. But the court held that argument contradicted the complaint, which expressly alleges that those same advertising works are substantially similar and infringing, and a party cannot amend its pleading through an opposition brief. Second, plaintiff argued that only Romo Ltd. made the post, so Romo, Inc. should not be affected. The court noted that the complaint alleges the “ROMO Defendants” displayed the advertising on the @romo_fabrics Instagram account, and plaintiff’s reliance on the defendants’ discovery responses did not help because the court could not consider materials outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(c) motion without converting it to a summary judgment motion. The court also observed that plaintiff had not moved for leave to amend its complaint to reflect those responses.

Key Takeaways

• Section 412 can eliminate statutory damages and attorney’s fees even when the main sales conduct occurred after registration, if a pre-registration act of infringement is part of the same continuing course of conduct.
• Under the Sixth Circuit’s approach, the first infringing act in a series is what counts, and a promotional post that predates registration can be enough.
• A plaintiff’s own allegations can defeat its position: pleading that advertising images are substantially similar and infringing makes it hard to later argue that the same images are de minimis.
• On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court generally will not consider discovery responses that are not referenced in the complaint, and an opposition brief cannot amend the complaint.

Why It Matters

For creators, the ruling is a reminder of how much timing matters in copyright enforcement. Statutory damages and fee-shifting are often the most powerful remedies because they do not require proof of actual losses, but they are unavailable if infringement starts before registration (and registration does not come within the three-month window after first publication). Registering works promptly, before they are widely copied or promoted, protects those remedies.

For companies facing copyright claims, the decision shows that a close reading of the plaintiff’s own exhibits and allegations can narrow the available remedies early in a case. The ruling addresses only statutory damages and fees against the Romo Defendants; it does not decide whether any infringement occurred.