On Davis v. The Gap, Inc.

Plaintiff On Davis (“Davis”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant, The Gap, Inc. (“the Gap”), dismissing plaintiffs claim of copyright infringement. See On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 8606(RWS), 1999 WL 199005 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9, 1999) (“Davis I”); Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 322 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“Davis II”).

*156 Davis is the creator and designer of nonfunctional jewelry worn over the eyes in the manner of eyeglasses. The Gap, Inc. is a major international retailer of clothing and accessories marketed largely to a youthful customer base with annual revenues of several billions of dollars. It operates several chains of retail stores, some under the name “Gap.” It is undisputed that the Gap, without Davis’s permission, used a photograph of an individual wearing Davis’s copyrighted eyewear in an advertisement for the stores operating under the “Gap” trademark that was widely displayed throughout the United States. Davis brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment of infringement and damages, including $2,500,000 in unpaid licensing fees, a percentage of the Gap’s profits, punitive damages of $10,000,000, and attorney’s fees. The district court granted summary judgment for the Gap on the grounds that (1) Davis’s claims for actual damages and profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (1994) were too speculative to support recovery, or were otherwise barred by a prior ruling of this court, (2) he was not eligible for statutory damages or attorney’s fees because he had not timely registered his copyright, and (3) the Copyright Act does not permit recovery of punitive damages. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *3-8. We affirm in part and, in part, vacate and remand.

BACKGROUND

Davis has created at least fifteen different designs of eye jewelry, which he markets under the name “Onoeulii Designs.” Davis describes Onoeulii eyewear as “sculptured metallic ornamental wearable art.” Am. Compl. ¶ 7. Each piece is made of gold, silver, or brass, and is constructed in a manner similar to eyeglasses (a frame hinged to templates that hook over the ears), but with very different effect. The frames support decorative, perforated metallic discs or plates in the place that would be occupied by the lenses of a pair of eyeglasses. The discs effectively conceal the wearer’s eyes, although the perforations permit the wearer to see through them. Some of Davis’s designs are of flowery or abstract filagree shapes, some are crescents with protruding spokes or wings. The particular piece that gives rise to this action consists of a horizontal bar at the level of the eyebrows from which are suspended a pair of slightly convex, circular discs of polished metal covering the eyes, perforated with dozens of tiny pinprick holes. Davis registered his copyright for the design at issue, effective May 16,1997.

Davis sought to gain recognition for his Onoeulii line by promoting and marketing his designs “in carefully chosen media settings.” Am. Compl. ¶ 13. As part of his marketing plan, Davis encouraged “known stylish and popular entertainers” to wear his creations in public settings. Pi’s Counter 56.1(c) Statement, ¶8. Entertainers who have worn Onoeulii designs while appearing on stage, on MTV, in magazine photographs or other media include Vernon Reid, Thomas Mapfumo, Don Cherry, Sun Ra, Ryo Kawasaki, Cat Coore, Mr. Pepper Seed, Chuck Johnson, and Jack and Jill. Various fashion designers have also featured Davis’s eyewear as accessories in runway shows or photographs, and his work has been noted in such publications as Vogue, Women’s Wear Daily, Fashion Market, In Fashion, The New York Times, The New York Post, and The Village Voice.

While Davis initially sold his designs on the street, since about 1995. he has marketed his merchandise through boutiques and optical stores. The eyewear sold at a wholesale price of approximately $30-45 a pair. Evidence in the record indicates *157 that it sold at retail for $65-100 a pair in 1995. See Am. Compl, Ex. B. Davis asserts he has earned approximately $10,000 from sales. He testified that on one occasion he received a $50 fee from Vibe magazine for the use of a photograph depicting the musician Sun Ra wearing an Onoculii piece.

In May 1996, prior to Davis’s registration of his copyright, the defendant created a series of advertisements showing photographs of people of various lifestyles wearing Gap clothing. The campaign was designed to promote the concept that Gap merchandise is worn by people of all kinds. The ad in question, which bears the caption “fast” emblazoned in red (the “fast” ad), depicts a group of seven 'young people probably in their twenties, of Asian appearance, standing in a loose V formation staring at the camera with a sultry, pouty, provocative look. The group projects the image of funky intimates of a lively after-hours rock music club. They are dressed primarily in black, exhibiting bare arms and partly bare chests, goatees (accompanied in one case by bleached, streaked hair), large-brimmed, Western-style hats, and distinctive eye shades, worn either over their eyes, on their hats, or cocked over the top of their heads. The central figure, at the apex of the V formation, is wearing Davis’s highly distinctive Onoculii eyewear; he peers over the metal disks directly into the camera lens.

The “fast” photograph was taken by the Gap in May 1996 during a photo shoot in the Tribeca area of Manhattan. The defendant provided the subjects with Gap apparel to wear for the shoot, and a trailer in which to change. The Gap claims that it did not furnish eyewear to any of the subjects, and that the subjects were told to wear their own eyewear, wristwatehes, earrings, nose-rings or other incidental items, thereby “permitting each person to project accurately his or her own personal image and appearance.” Def.’s 56.1(c) Statement, ¶ 18.

The Gap’s “fast” advertisement was published in a variety of magazines, including W, Vanity Fair, Spin, Details, and Entertainment Weekly. Davis claims that the total circulation of these magazines was over 2,500,000. For five weeks during August and September of 1996, the advertisement was displayed on the sides of buses in New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The advertisement may also have been displayed on bus shelters. According to Davis, when used on buses the photograph was cropped so that only the heads and shoulders of the subjects were shown.

Davis submitted evidence showing that during the fourth quarter of 1996, the period that Davis asserts is relevant to the “fast” advertisement, the net annual sales of the parent company, Gap, Inc., increased by about 10 percent, compared to the fourth quarter of 1995, to $1,668 billion dollars. There was no evidence of what portion of the parent company’s revenues were attributable to the stores operated under the Gap label, much less what portion was related to the ad in question.

Shortly after seeing the “fast” advertisement in October and November 1996, Davis contacted the Gap by telephone and in writing. The Gap’s advertising campaign, which apparently ran during August and September of 1996, had been completed by the time Davis wrote. Davis stated that he had not authorized the use of his design and inquired whether the Gap might be interested in selling a line of his eyewear.

Davis filed this action on November 19, 1997. The Gap then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that Davis had no entitlement to damages *158 and that his claims were barred by the de minimis and fair use doctrines.

On April 9, 1999, the district court granted summary judgment for the Gap. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *10. The district court first noted that Davis was not eligible for “statutory damages” under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) due to the fact that he had not registered his copyright within three months of his first “publication” of his work or prior to the allegedly infringing use by the Gap. 1 As regards damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), the court rejected Davis’s claim as unduly speculative and,' insofar as it sought damages for Davis’s failure to receive a license fee from the Gap, precluded by a prior decision of this court. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *3-*7. Since the court also found Davis ineligible for punitive damages, it concluded that he was not entitled to any form of damages, and thus dismissed his claims. See id. at *8, *10. Davis filed a motion for reconsideration on April 27, 1999, which was denied on June 16, 1999. See Davis II, 186 F.R.D. 322.

On appeal, Davis argues principally that (1) the district court erred by granting summary judgment without ruling on the merits of his claim for declaratory relief; and (2) he was entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages. The Gap defends the district court’s judgment and argues in addition that the suit was subject to dismissal under the de minimis and fair use doctrines.

We affirm in part and reverse in part.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is proper when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment is sought, reveals “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

A. Declaratory Relief

Davis contends that it was improper for the district court to grant summary judgment on his copyright claims . without first determining whether the defendant infringed his copyright. The complaint expressly sought “a declaratory judgment in favor of Mr. Davis against GAP, declaring” that the Gap had infringed Davis’s copyright by its reproduction of his eyewear in its advertisement. Am. Compl, ¶ A. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of a variety of theories that had no bearing on the demand for declaratory relief. No doubt because of the confusing and prolix nature of the complaint, this aspect of the relief sought was overlooked. The existence of damages suffered is not an essential element of a claim for copyright infringement. See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991) (to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, “two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original”); 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01, at 13-6 *159 (1999) (“Notably absent from this formulation of the prima facie case is damage or any harm to [the] plaintiff resulting from the infringement.”). The owner of a copyright is thus entitled to prevail in a claim for declaratory judgment of infringement without showing entitlement to monetary relief. Insofar as the judgment dismissed the claim for declaratory relief without discussion, wTe are obliged to vacate the judgment and remand for consideration of that claim.

B. Compensatory Damages

17 U.S.C. § 504 imposes two categories of compensatory damages. Taking care to specify that double recovery is not permitted where the two categories overlap, the statute provides for the recovery of both the infringer’s profits and the copyright owner’s “actual damages.” 2 It is important that these two categories of compensation have different justifications and are based on different financial data. The award of the infringer’s profits examines the facts only from the infringer’s point of view. If the infringer has earned a profit, this award makes him disgorge the profit to insure that he not benefit from his wrongdoing. The award of the owner’s actual damages looks at the facts from the point of view of they copyright owner; it undertakes to compensate the owner for any harm he suffered by reason of the infringer’s illegal act. See generally Fitzgerald Publ’g Co. v. Baylor Publ’g Co., 807 F.2d 1110, 1118 (2d Cir.1986); Walker v. Forbes, Inc., 28 F.3d 409, 412 (4th Cir.1994).

The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Davis’s claims for damages. As for Davis’s claim of entitlement to a part of the “infringer’s profits,” the district court believed Davis failed to show any causal connection between the infringement and the defendant’s profits. With respect’to Davis’s claim of entitlement to “actual damages” based on the license fee he should have been paid for the Gap’s unauthorized usé of his copyrighted material, the district court believed that his evidence was too speculative and that our decision in Business Trends Analysts, Inc. v. Freedonia Group, Inc., 887 F.2d 399 (2d Cir.1989), precluded any such award.

We agree with the district court as to the defendant’s profits, but not as to Davis’s claim for damages based on the Gap’s failure to pay him a reasonable license fee.

1. Infidnger’s,profits

Davis submitted evidence that, during and shortly after the Gap’s advertising campaign featuring the “fast” ad, the corporate parent of the Gap stores realized net sales of $1.668 billion, an increase of $146 million over the revenues earned in the same period of the preceding year. The district court considered this evidence inadequate to sustain a judgment in the *160 plaintiffs favor because the overall revenues of the Gap, Inc. had no reasonable relationship to the act of alleged infringement. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *6. Because the ad infringed only with respect to Gap label stores and eyewear, we agree with the district court that it was incumbent on Davis to submit evidence'at least limited to the gross revenues of the Gap label stores, and perhaps also limited to eyewear or accessories. Had he done so, the burden would then have shifted to the defendant under the terms of § 504(b) to prove its deductible expenses and elements of profits from those revenues attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

It is true that a highly literal interpretation of the statute would favor Davis. It says that “the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue,” 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), leaving it to the infringer to prove what portions of its revenue are not attributable to the infringement. Nonetheless we think the term “gross revenue” under the statute means gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not unrelated revenues.

Thus, if a publisher published an anthology of poetry which contained a poem covered by the plaintiffs copyright, we do not think the plaintiffs statutory burden would be discharged by submitting the publisher’s gross revenue resulting from its publication of hundreds of titles, including trade books, textbooks, cookbooks, etc. In our view, the owner’s burden would require evidence of the revenues realized from the sale of the anthology containing the infringing poem. The publisher would then bear the burden of proving its costs attributable to the anthology and the extent to which its profits from the sale of the anthology were attributable to factors other than the infringing poem, including particularly the other poems contained in the volume. The point would be clearer still if the defendant publisher were part of a conglomerate corporation that also received income from agriculture, canning, shipping, and real estate development. While the burden-shifting statute undoubtedly intended to ease plaintiffs burden in proving the defendant’s profits, we do not believe it would shift the burden so far as to permit a plaintiff in such a case to satisfy his burden by showing gross revenues from agriculture, canning, shipping and real estate where the infringement consisted of the unauthorized publication of a poem. The facts of this case are less extreme; nonetheless, the point remains the same: the statutory term “infringer’s gross revenue” should not be construed so broadly as to include revenue from lines of business that were unrelated to the act of infringement.

The district court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir.1983). In that case the defendant was a map-maker, who copied and sold three of the plaintiffs copyrighted maps. During the relevant time period the defendant sold 150 maps, as well as other merchandise. Plaintiff submitted evidence of gross revenues and profits deriving from the defendant’s overall sales. The court rejected plaintiffs claim, reasoning:

all [the burden shifting language of § 504(b)] means is that [the plaintiff] could have made out a prima facie case for an award of infringer’s profits by showing [the defendant’s] gross revenues from the sale of the infringing maps. It was not enough to show [the defendant’s] gross revenues from the sale of everything he sold....

Id. at 1122.

Applying this reasoning to our ease, we think the district court was correct in rul *161 ing that Davis failed to discharge his burden by submitting The Gap, Inc.’s gross revenue of $1,668 billion — -revenue derived in part from sales under other labels within the Gap, Inc.’s corporate family that were in no way promoted by the advertisement, not to mention sales under the “Gap” label of jeans, khakis, shirts, underwear, cosmetics, children’s clothing, and infantwear.

2. The copyright owner’s actual damages: Davis’s failure to receive a reasonable licensing fee

Among the elements Davis sought to prove as damages was the failure to receive a reasonable license fee from the Gap for its use of his copyrighted eyewear. The complaint asserted an entitlement to a $2.5 million licensing fee. The district court rejected the claim on two grounds. First, the court found that Davis’s claim was too speculative — that is, insufficiently supported by evidence. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *5. Second, the court believed that our decision in Business Trends, 887 F.2d 399, bars a copyright owner’s claim for actual damages consisting of the infringer’s failure to pay the fair market value of a license fee for the use the infringer made. See Davis I, 1999 WL 199005, at *6-*7.

a. Was Davis’s evidence too speculative?

While there was no evidence to support Davis’s wildly inflated claim of entitlement to $2.5 million, in our view his evidence did support a much more modest claim of a fair market value for a license to use his design in the ad. In addition to his evidence of numerous instances in which rock music stars wore Onoculii eyewear in photographs exhibited in music publications, Davis testified that on one occasion he was paid a royalty of $50 for the publication by Vibe magazine of a photo of the deceased musician Sun Ra wearing Davis’s eyewear.

On the basis of this evidence, a jury could reasonably find that Davis established a fair market value of at least $50 as a fee for the use of an image of his copyrighted design. This evidence was sufficiently concrete to support a finding of fair market value of $50 for the type of use made by Vibe. And if Davis could show at trial that the Gap- used the image in a wider circulation than Vibe, that might justify a finding that the market value for the Gap’s use of the eyewear was higher than $50. Therefore, to the extent the district court dismissed the case because Davis’s evidence of the market value of a license fee was too speculative, we believe this was error.

b. Our decision in Business Trends

The district court believed our decision in Business Trends interprets § 504(b) to foreclose “actual damages” to compensate a plaintiff for the defendant’s failure to pay for the reasonable value of what the defendant took. We believe this was a misreading of the holding in Business Trends. The district court decision under review in that case had not made an award of “actual damages” under this theory. The award we reviewed and rejected in that case was fashioned under the other prong of § 504(b) — the infringer’s profits. See Business Trends, 887 F.2d at 402. While there is indeed some language in our Business Trends decision expressing disfavor for Davis’s theory of actual damages, it was not at issue in that case. Furthermore, our decision did not purport to lay down an absolute rule; the decision made clear that our ruling depended on the particular factual circumstances — circumstances that are not present here. Finally, as we discuss below, both before and after Business Trends, we have either *162 awarded such damages or implied that they were appropriate. See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 310-13 (2d Cir.1992); Abeshouse v. Ultragraphics, Inc., 754 F.2d 467, 470-72 (2d Cir.1985); Szekely v. Eagle Lion Films, Inc., 242 F.2d 266, 268-69 (2d Cir.1957). Moreover, other courts have adopted the same analysis, and the Supreme Court has suggested, albeit obliquely, that such a measure of damages is appropriate. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985).

In Business Trends, the plaintiff and defendant were competitors in the publication of economic analyses and forecasts— not a relationship where the defendant was a potential licensee of the plaintiff. Each produced a study of the robotics industry. The plaintiff BTA marketed copies of its study for $1,500. The defendant TFG produced a similar study which it initially offered at the same price as BTA’s study. In response to slow sales, defendant TFG cut its price by 90% to $150 during a three-month special-offer period. It sold 37 copies at the reduced price. Plaintiff BTA registered its study with the Copyright Office but only after the defendant had begun selling its version. See Business Trends, 887 F.2d at 401.

BTA sued TFG alleging that TFG’s report included portions that were copied from BTA’s. The district court found copying and substantial similarity. It awarded damages of $54,028.35. The damages were found solely for the infringer’s profits under the second prong of § 504(b). No damages were awarded under the first prong for the “actual damages” suffered by the owner. In fact, the district court expressly found that plaintiff “failed to establish actual damages as a consequence of defendants’ infringement of BTA’s robotics study.” Business Trends Analysts, Inc. v. Freedonia Group, Inc., 700 F.Supp. 1213, 1233 (S.D.N.Y.1988).

The infringer’s profits awarded were derived from two components: a smaller component consisting of TFG’s cash profit (revenues minus expenses) on its sale of the robotics study, and a larger amount consisting of non-cash profit attributed in part to the value of acquired goodwill (a “value of use”) deriving in part from TFG’s giving the report to customers at a 90% markdown. See Business Trends, 700 F.Supp. at 1237-41. In justifying the proposition that the profits of the infringement could properly include non-cash benefits to the infringer resulting from the infringement, the district court referred to the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion in Deltak, Inc. v. Advanced Sys., Inc., 767 F.2d 357 (7th Cir.1985), that “ ‘saved acquisition cost is a measure of damages or profit’ when calculating value of use under the statute, where cash was not generated.” Business Trends, 700 F.Supp. at 1238 (quoting Deltak, 767 F.2d at 362 n. 3).

We affirmed the award insofar as it was based on TFG’s cash profit from the sale of the infringing report. However, insofar as the district court had attributed profits to the defendant based on non-cash elements consisting either of goodwill achieved by giving the infringing study to customers at a heavily discounted price, or the “value of use” the defendant achieved by acquiring for free material for which it might otherwise have paid the plaintiff, we found such attribution of profit to the defendant inappropriate. See Business Trends, 887 F.2d at 404-407.

We noted that the district court had based its analysis of the non-cash elements of the defendant’s profits in part on Del-tak’s reasoning. See Business Trends, 887 F.2d at 404^405. We declined to adopt Deltak’s approach, relying primarily on two reasons. See id. at 405. First, we *163 believed the instructions of § 504(b) relating to the proof of the “infringer’s profits” indicated “that Congress means ‘profits’ in the lay sense of gross revenue less out-of-pocket costs, not the fictive purchase price , that TFG hypothetically chose not to pay to BTA.” Id. at 405-06. Second, given the defendant’s larcenous intent and the competitive relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, we believed it was unreasonable to find that the defendant profited within the meaning of the statute by copying for free rather than paying the price it might have negotiated with the plaintiff. See id. at 405 (“TFG no more priced the BTA study and then decided to copy than a purse-snatcher decides to fore-go friendly negotiations.”).

The sole issue before us was whether either the expenses saved by the infringer resulting from its decision to infringe rather than purchase or the goodwill the defendant generated by offering the infringing material to its customers at a greatly reduced price can be considered “infringer’s profits” recoverable under § 504(b). The decision did not involve the question we now consider — whether the amount the owner failed to collect as a reasonable royalty or license fee could be considered as constituting the owner’s actual damages under § 504(a) and (b). 3

It is true that the Business Trends decision, in a digression, observed “that [actual damages] is hardly a reasonable description of the entirely hypothetical sales to TFG lost by BTA.” Id. at 405. The opinion also quoted a lengthy passage from the Nimmer treatise which asserts “it is open to question” whether Deltak’s “value of use” standard fits within the statutory limits for either actual damages or infringer’s profits. See Business Trends, 887 F.2d at 406.

For two reasons, we believe Business Trends does not foreclose the use of the owner’s loss of a reasonable royalty as its “actual damages” under § 504(a) and (b). First, as noted, that issue was not before the court. Whatever comments we made about “actual damages” were dicta. Second, we went to pains in Business Trends to make clear that we were not laying down an absolute rule, but rather making a ruling that was heavily influenced by the particular facts of that case. We rejected the defendant’s argument that a “value of use” standard is always impermissible, saying “we see no legal barrier to such an award under Section 504(b) so long as the amount of the award is based on a factual basis rather than ‘undue speculation.’ ” Id. at 404. Again at the conclusion of the opinion we “emphasize[d] that we are not rejecting as a matter of law” a recognition of the “value of use” theory. Id. at 407. We held “only that the proof in the instant case is inadequate to support such an award.” M 4

To the extent that the Business Trends decision was based on its observation that the defendant before it was no more inclined to negotiate a purchase price than a “purse snatcher,” the facts of our case are *164 significantly different. The Gap was not seeking, like the Business Trends defendant, to surreptitiously steal material owned by a competitor. There is no reason to suppose that the Gap’s use of Davis’s copyrighted eyewear without first receiving his permission was attributable to anything other than oversight or mistake. To the contrary, the facts of this case support the view that the Gap and Davis could have happily discussed the payment of a fee, and that Davis’s consent, if sought, could have been had for very little money, since significant advantages might flow to him from having his eyewear displayed in the Gap’s ad. Alternatively, if Davis’s demands had been excessive, the Gap would in all likelihood have simply eliminated Davis’s eyewear from the photograph. Where the Business Trends decision was motivated by its perception of the unrealistic nature of a suggestion that the infringer might have bargained with the owner, see 887 F.2d at 405, such a scenario was in no way unlikely in the present case.

c. Actual damages under § 504-(a) and (b)

Because Business Trends did not rule on, much less foreclose, the use of a reasonable license fee theory as the measure of damages suffered by Davis when the Gap used his material without payment, we proceed to consider whether that measure of damages is permissible under the statute.

The question is as follows: Assume that the copyright owner proves that the defendant has infringed his work. He proves also that a license to make such use of the work has a fair market value, but does not show that the infringement caused him lost sales, lost opportunities to license, or diminution in the value of the copyright. The only proven loss lies in the owner’s failure to receive payment by the infringer of the fair market value of the use illegally appropriated. Should the owner’s claim for “actual damages” under § 504(b) be dismissed? Or should the court award damages corresponding to the fair market value of the use appropriated by the in-fringer?

Neither answer is entirely satisfactory. If the court dismisses the claim by reason of the owner’s failure to prove that the act of infringement cause economic harm, the infringer will get his illegal taking for free, and the owner will be left uncompensated for the illegal taking of something of value. On the other hand, an award of damages might be seen as a windfall for an owner who received no less than he would have if the infringer had refrained from the illegal taking. In our view, the more reasonable approach is to allow such an award in appropriate circumstances.

Section 504(a) and (b) employ the broad term “actual damages.” Courts and commentators agree it should be broadly construed to favor victims of infringement. See William F. Patry, Copyright Laiv and Practice 1167 (1994) (“Within reason, any ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the copyright owner.”); 4 Nimmer § 14.02[A], at 14-12 (“[U]ncertainty will not preclude a recovery of actual damages if the uncertainty is as to amount, but not as to the fact that actual damages are attributable to the infringement.”); Fitzgerald Publ’g Co., 807 F.2d at 1118 (“[Actual damages are not ... narrowly focused.”); Sygma Photo News, Inc. v. High Society Magazine, 778 F.2d 89, 95 (2d Cir.1985) (stating that when courts are confronted with imprecision in calculating damages, they “should err on the side of guaranteeing the plaintiff a full recovery”). Cf. In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp., 13 F.3d 559, 564 (2d Cir.1994) (noting that any doubts in calculating profits which re- *165 suit from the infringer’s failure to present adequate proof of its costs are to be resolved in favor of the copyright holder), abrogated on other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994).

A principal objective of the copyright law is to enable creators to earn a living either by selling or by licensing others to sell copies of the copyrighted work. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (“Congress shall have the power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”); Statute of Anne, 1709, 8 Anne, ch. 19 (Eng.), reprinted in III Patry, supra, at 1461 (first establishing copyright protection for authors because “Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing ... books, and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families”).

If a copier of protected work, instead of obtaining permission and paying the fee, proceeds without permission and without compensating the owner, it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that the owner has suffered damages to the extent of the in-fringer’s taking without paying what the owner was legally entitled to exact a fee for. We can see no reason why, as an abstract matter, the statutory term “actual damages” should not cover the owner’s failure to obtain the market value of the fee the owner was entitled to charge for such use.

The problem is roughly analogous to illegal takings or uses in other contexts outside the realm of copyright. For example:

(a) D, who lives on property adjacent to P, without authorization regularly swims and canoes in P’s lake and uses a road crossing P’s land because it provides more direct access to town. The right to use P’s property for such purposes has a fair market value. P proves neither harm to his property nor loss of opportunity to license others to use the property for such recreation. Nonetheless P has lost the revenue he would have recovered if D had paid the fair market value of what he took.

(b) P, the owner of a baseball stadium charges $50 for admission to games. D, through a corrupt arrangement with a stadium usher, sneaks in free on days when the stadium has excess seating capacity. P shows no economic injury inflicted by D’s free entrance, other than the hypothetical loss of the revenue for the tickets D did not purchase.

(c) P Telephone Company charges set rates for calls on its lines. D devises an electronic “black box” that emits signals mimicking the telephone company’s codes, enabling D to place calls without charge. D places free calls at late-night, off-peak hours when the telephone lines are underutilized, and P is unable to prove any loss inflicted by the unauthorized use, other than its failure to collect its regular rates.

(d) P is a public transportation system. D, a subway rider, jumps the turnstile and avoids paying the normal $1.50 fee..

(e) P, a manufacturing company in reorganization, owns (or leases) warehousing space in a warehouse facility. Because of P’s financial and *166 legal difficulties, the space has been unused for some time; D company, which leases adjacent warehouse space, noting that P’s space is not being used, secretly uses P’s space to warehouse its own inventories.

In each of these cases, the defendant, has surreptitiously taken a valuable right, for which plaintiff could have charged a reasonable fee. Plaintiffs revenue is thus smaller than it would have been if defendant had paid for what he took. On the other hand, plaintiffs revenue is no less than it would have been if the defendant had refrained from the taking. In our view, as between leaving the victim of the illegal taking with nothing, and charging the illegal taker with the reasonable cost of what he took, the latter, at least in some circumstances, is the preferable solution.