## Facts

- DRK Photo, a stock photography agency, marketed and licensed photographs created by independent photographers to publishers.
- DRK entered into “representation agreements” authorizing it to license photographers’ images, while allowing photographers to license the same images themselves or through others.
- After alleged infringements occurred, DRK and certain photographers executed “assignment” agreements purporting to transfer copyright interests to DRK “for the sole purpose of” pursuing infringement claims, including claims for past infringements.
- McGraw-Hill licensed certain photographs from DRK for use in textbooks.
- DRK alleged McGraw-Hill exceeded license limits by, among other things, printing and distributing more copies than authorized and using images in unlicensed editions.
- DRK sued for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 in the District of Arizona.
- The district court granted summary judgment to McGraw-Hill for lack of standing and denied DRK’s request to modify the scheduling order to add three photographers as plaintiffs.
- DRK appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether DRK had standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) as a legal owner of an exclusive right based on its representation and post-infringement assignment agreements.
2. Whether DRK qualified as a “beneficial owner” of an exclusive right under § 501(b) based on its role and compensation as a licensing agent.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying modification of the scheduling order to amend the complaint and join photographers as plaintiffs after summary judgment briefing was underway.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for McGraw-Hill.
- DRK lacked legal-owner standing because the representation agreements made DRK a nonexclusive licensing agent, not the owner of any exclusive right.
- DRK’s post-infringement “assignment” agreements did not confer standing because they functioned as transfers of the right to sue on accrued claims rather than transfers of an exclusive right.
- DRK lacked beneficial-owner standing because its interest was that of a commission-based agent, not a party who transferred legal title in exchange for continuing royalty-like interests.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying modification of the scheduling order to add photographers as plaintiffs due to late timing and lack of good cause.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b), only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right may sue for infringement of that right committed while the plaintiff owned it.
- A nonexclusive licensee or agent is not a legal owner of any exclusive right and lacks standing to sue for infringement in its own name.
- An assignment that effectively transfers only an accrued infringement claim (a “bare right to sue”), without transferring ownership of an exclusive right, does not create § 501(b) standing.
- “Beneficial owner” status generally involves a party who parted with legal title to an exclusive right in exchange for continuing economic participation (such as royalties), not a party paid commissions for arranging licenses.
- After a scheduling order is in place, amendment to add parties requires “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b); late requests that would disrupt the case or prejudice the opposing party may be denied.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that DRK, as a nonexclusive licensing agent, lacked standing to sue for copyright infringement, and that post hoc, litigation-focused “assignments” did not supply the required ownership of an exclusive right; it also upheld the denial of a late attempt to add photographers as plaintiffs.


DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017)