Emfinger v. La Zeta 95.7 Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
RONALD BRIAN EMFINGER
v. 	Case No. 5:25-CV-05075-DCF
LA ZETA 95.7 INC.
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue
of Liability. (Doc. 19). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is a copyright action. 	A jury trial is set in this matter for May 18,
2026. (Doc. 17). This matter stems from a video of tornado damage in Rogers,
Arkansas in May 2024. On April 9, 2025, Plaintiff Ronald Brian Emfinger filed
a 	Complaint 	against 	Defendant 	La 	Zeta 	95.7, 	Inc., 	alleging 	copyright
infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332. 	(Doc. 2).
Plaintiff alleged that he created the video and owned the rights and licenses for
its various uses. (Id.). He sought to recover damages based on La Zeta’s alleged
unauthorized use of the video in furtherance of its business, namely through its
social media account “La Zeta NW Arkansas.” (Id.).
Defendant filed its Answer on May 22, 2025, denying all wrongdoing,
asserting a fair use defense, and demanding a jury trial. 	(Doc. 8). 	Defendant
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
asserted, inter alia, that the video at issue was not protected by copyright because
it captured raw footage of a news event having minimal creative input. 	(Id.).
Defendant also pleaded affirmatively that Plaintiff’s claims were barred as a
misuse of copyright law to coerce settlement on unreasonable terms. 	(Id.).
About one month later, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) Joint Report (Doc. 12), and
the discovery deadline passed on January 16, 2026 (Doc. 17).
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion requesting the
Court grant summary judgment on the issue of liability. 	(Doc. 19). He asserts
that there is no issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s liability because
Plaintiff has established a prima facie claim for direct copyright infringement.
(Doc. 20, p. 4). He asserts that he owns a valid copyright of the video at issue
and that Defendant copied and displayed the video without authorization;
therefore, summary judgment should be granted in his favor on this issue. (Id.
at 5).
Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment on Liability on February 9, 2026. (Doc. 24). Defendant asserts that
summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor is not warranted because there remain
genuine disputes of material fact as to whether La Zeta had an express or implied
license to use the footage, which is a complete defense to liability. 	(Id. at 5).
Defendant further argues that summary judgment in its favor is appropriate
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
based on the fair use defense. (Id. at 7-8).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The
Court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the opposing party and
give that party the benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from
those facts. Canada v. Union Elec. Co., 135 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (8th Cir. 1997).
The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine dispute
of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586-87 (1986).
Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must
“come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[T]he mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [moving party’s] position
will be insufficient” to survive summary judgment. Anderson v. Durham D&M,
L.L.C., 606 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). 	Rather, for there to be a genuine issue of
material fact that would preclude summary judgment, the non-moving party
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
must produce evidence “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” 	Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc., 28 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir.
1994) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden to prove the absence
of a genuine dispute of material fact in this case. Plaintiff contends that summary
judgment should be granted in his favor because he has established a prima facie
claim for direct copyright infringement under the Feist test, which requires a
plaintiff to show 1) it owns a valid copyright of the infringed work and 2) the
defendant copied protected elements from that work. 	(Doc. 20 (citing Feist
Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). While it does
not appear that the parties dispute Plaintiff’s certificate of registration reflecting
his 	copyright 	pursuant 	to 	17 	U.S.C. 	§ 	411(a), 	they 	do 	dispute 	whether
Defendant’s actions were unauthorized.
Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant has presented specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. 	Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s
claim that it engaged in actionable copying of the video at issue. 	(Doc. 24).
While Plaintiff was not deposed, written discovery responses demonstrate that
Defendant received the video through a user submission that included attribution
to Plaintiff. (Id.). Defendant believed it had permission to use the video so long
as proper credit was given, and it did so only in a context that clearly and
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
expressly attributed the video to Plaintiff. (Id.).
Defendant also submits that its use of the video at issue cannot amount to
infringing conduct because the footage depicts ‘incidents, characters or settings
which are as a practical matter indispensable, or at least standard, in the
treatment of a given topic.’ (Id. at 5-6 (citing Frye v. YMCA Camp Kitaki, 617
F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2010)). 	Because the passive drone footage at issue
necessarily depicts elements common to a post-tornado scene, according to
Defendant, it is not protectable by copyright. (Id. at 6).
Finally, Defendant asserts that its social media post of the video at issue
constitutes non-infringing Fair Use for four reasons: 1) its purpose and character
were noncommercial; 2) the video was a factual description of newsworthy
events recorded from public vantage points; 3) the amount and substantiality of
the portion used in relation to the work as a whole was limited; and 4) Plaintiff
suffered no harm to the market value of the video due to Defendant’s use.
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the issue of liability in this case contains a genuine
dispute of material facts. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
IT IS HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Issues of Liability (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May 2026.
/s/David Clay Fowlkes
DAVID CLAY FOWLKES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05075-DCF Document 46 Filed 05/07/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>