## Facts

- Several motion picture companies sued Alex Garcia, who operated a video rental store, for renting unauthorized duplicate videotapes of their copyrighted films.
- An MPAA investigator identified the store as renting unauthorized duplicate tapes.
- A court order authorized the U.S. Marshal to seize infringing tapes from the store.
- On December 12, 1996, marshals seized 133 unauthorized duplicate videotapes corresponding to 102 copyrighted movies.
- Garcia did not materially dispute that the store rented the tapes to the public.
- To oppose summary judgment, Garcia asserted he was absent during the seizure and had not seen the tapes afterward, and he claimed he did not duplicate the tapes and lacked copying equipment because he purchased them from third parties.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs established, without a genuine dispute of material fact, that the seized videotapes were unauthorized copies and that Garcia infringed by renting them.
2. Whether Garcia’s claim that he did not make the copies, lacked duplicating equipment, and purchased the tapes from others could defeat liability or create a triable issue.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to remedies including statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and disposition of infringing copies.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court found no genuine dispute that the seized tapes were unauthorized duplicates and that Garcia infringed by renting them to the public.
- The court held Garcia’s asserted lack of involvement in duplication and his claimed innocence did not bar liability and did not create a genuine factual dispute.
- The court awarded statutory damages, issued permanent injunctive relief, and ordered relief directed to the infringing copies (including destruction-type relief).

## Legal Principles

- Copyright infringement may be established by proving ownership of valid copyrights and unauthorized exercise of an exclusive right, including the right to distribute copies to the public by rental. 17 U.S.C. § 106(3).
- A retailer infringes by renting unauthorized copies even if the retailer did not manufacture or duplicate the infringing copies.
- A nonmovant cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory assertions or professed ignorance; the opposing party must produce competent evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact.
- “Innocent infringement” does not negate liability; at most, it may affect statutory damages within the Copyright Act’s remedial framework. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
- Permanent injunctive relief is appropriate where infringement is shown and future unauthorized distribution is likely, and courts may order seizure or destruction of infringing copies as part of equitable relief.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for the film studios because the undisputed record showed Garcia’s store rented unauthorized duplicate tapes, and Garcia’s claim that he merely bought the tapes and did not duplicate them did not defeat infringement liability; the court therefore granted statutory damages and permanent injunctive and dispositional relief concerning the infringing copies.


Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Garcia, 996 F. Supp. 770 (N.D. Ill. 1998)