In DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, why did DRK Photo lack standing to sue for copyright infringement?

In DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, why did DRK Photo lack standing to sue for copyright infringement?

• A. It held only accrued claims, not exclusive rights
• B. It did not register the works in question
• C. It failed to prove actual damages
• D. It was not the owner of the underlying license

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that standing to sue for copyright infringement depends on owning the copyright or holding an exclusive license to exercise the rights in the work. DRK Photo did not own the exclusive rights to the photographs; it only held accrued claims—that is, monetary claims or rights to sue for damages that might exist but not the underlying exclusive rights themselves. Without the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, or license the work, DRK Photo could not enforce a copyright infringement claim, so it lacked standing to sue. Registration, damages, or a non-exclusive license would not cure the absence of ownership of the exclusive rights.

The key idea is that standing to sue for copyright infringement depends on owning the copyright or holding an exclusive license to exercise the rights in the work. DRK Photo did not own the exclusive rights to the photographs; it only held accrued claims—that is, monetary claims or rights to sue for damages that might exist but not the underlying exclusive rights themselves. Without the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, or license the work, DRK Photo could not enforce a copyright infringement claim, so it lacked standing to sue. Registration, damages, or a non-exclusive license would not cure the absence of ownership of the exclusive rights.