Alexia Fodere v. Pablo Lorenzo, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10991
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-23120-JLK
ALEXIA FODERE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PABLO LORENZO,
COMPACSTONE USA, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 27, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

This appeal concerns the propriety of the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants. Defendant Pablo Lorenzo was a salesman
employed by defendant Compacstone, a company that sells marble and quartz to
be installed in homes. Plaintiff Alexia Fodere is a professional photographer who
brought a copyright infringement action against the defendants. She alleged that
they used the “Orange Kitchen” photograph she sold them for $600.00 for
advertising, without her permission. The summary judgment was based on a
finding that the defendants met their burden of establishing as an affirmative
defense that the parties had an oral agreement granting the defendants an exclusive
license to use the photograph for advertising.
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo,
“construing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when the
record, taken as a whole, establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a).
Having carefully reviewed and considered the briefs and relevant parts of
the record, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. Although Fodere
2

-- 2 of 3 --

claims that the photograph she sold the defendants was intended to be used only
for “public relations, website, [and] collateral usage,” we agree with the district
court that the “ambiguous” statements in Fodere’s deposition are insufficient to
create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants were entitled to
use the Orange Kitchen photograph for advertising purposes.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --