## Facts

- Chase Jarvis, a professional outdoor-sports photographer, created thousands of photographic slides for K2 Inc.’s marketing campaigns under five agreements from 1999–2002 (three oral, two written).
- Each slide delivery included a memorandum stating that loss or damage of any image would result in a $1,500 fee per image, described as consistent with industry standards.
- The agreements granted K2 limited, time-bound rights to use Jarvis’s images in specified marketing materials and contemplated photographer credit.
- Jarvis alleged K2 (1) used photographs beyond the scope and duration of the licenses (including online display after expiration), (2) lost many delivered slides, and (3) failed to provide credit.
- Four disputed “collage” advertisements combined 24 of Jarvis’s images with other photographs, graphics, and text into promotional posters.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly calculated damages for copyright infringement, lost slides, and failures to credit, including reliance on reasonable estimates and the $1,500 per-image loss figure.
2. Whether K2’s collage advertisements qualified for the 17 U.S.C. § 201(c) “collective works” privilege, or instead were derivative works outside that privilege.
3. If § 201(c) did not apply, whether K2’s post-license online display of the collages infringed and what further remedies determinations were required.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s damages awards, holding the court reasonably estimated market value and business losses and permissibly relied on the per-image loss figure supported by the record.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling that the collage advertisements were protected by § 201(c), holding the collages were derivative works because they transformed the original images into new promotional posters.
- The court held K2’s online display of the collage advertisements after expiration of the licenses infringed Jarvis’s copyrights in the underlying photographs.
- The case was remanded for determinations concerning willfulness, actual and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees related to the collage advertisements.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright damages may be based on reasonable estimates of market value and related losses when precise proof is unavailable, so long as the estimates are grounded in record evidence, contractual terms, and accepted industry measures.
- The § 201(c) privilege for collective works is limited and does not extend to new works that recast or transform contributed material; advertising layouts that integrate and alter photographs into a unified poster can be derivative works.
- Express temporal limits in a license define the scope of authorized use; continued use after the agreed period expires constitutes infringement absent a valid statutory privilege or contractual authorization.
- When infringement liability is established for particular uses, the trial court must determine remedies issues such as willfulness, eligibility for statutory damages, and attorney’s fees as applicable.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s damages methodology but rejected K2’s reliance on § 201(c), holding the collage advertisements were derivative works and that K2 infringed by displaying them online after the licenses expired, requiring a remand for additional remedies findings.


Jarvis v. K2 Inc., 486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007)