Lynn Boolman Answer

USDC IN/ND case 3:23-cv-00061-DRL-MGG document 9 filed 03/28/23 page 1 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ALEXANDER BAYONNE STROSS., )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) CASE: 3:23-CV-00061-DRL-MGG
LYNN BOOLMAN AUTO SALES )
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, )
and CARSFORSALE.COM, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT LYNN BOOLMAN AUTO SALES LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Defendant Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company (hereafter
“Boolman Auto Sales”), through its counsel, now answers Plaintiff’s Complaint for
Copyright Infringement.
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff ALEXANDER BAYONNE STROSS (“Stross”) brings this action for
violations of exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, to copy and distribute
Stross' original copyrighted Work of authorship.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that Stross brings this action under 17
U.S.C. § 106, but denies the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1.
2. Stross is the owner and principal photographer of Stross Stock. After traveling the
world with his camera, creating thousands of high-quality photographs, the natural next step was
to offer the public means to license his Work. Each photo on Stross Stock is shot with top-quality
equipment, thoughtfully produced, hand selected, and tastefully edited before being made available
to the public.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2.
3. Stross is a native of Austin, Texas, and watched the small city grow and develop
into an urban hot spot. This served as his inspiration to become a photographer, centering his
expertise on complicated architectural photography and landscape photography. In 2016, Stross
was nominated and accepted as a professional member of the American Society of Media
Photographers, which is a high honor. Stross received a B.S. in Computer Science at the University
of Texas at Austin and has since combined his love for the photographic arts and computer science
by building an online system to help protect artists' works on the internet.
4. Defendant LYNN BOOLMAN AUTO SALES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
(“Boolman”) is a used car dealership located in Portland, Indiana. At all times relevant herein,
Boolman owned and operated the internet website located at the URL www.boolmanautosales.com
(the “Website”).
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability
company and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4.
5. Defendant CARSFORSALE.COM, INC. (“Carsforsale”) is an online marketplace
for auto sales around the country, which works with dealers nationwide to market and sell cars
Page 2 of 17
through either partnered relationships with those dealers or listings from established dealerships
nationwide. Carsforsale serves over 100 million shoppers annually, and works directly with over
22,500 dealerships nationwide.
6. Stross alleges that Defendants copied his copyrighted Work from the internet in
order to advertise, market and promote their business activities. Defendants committed the
violations alleged in connection with their business for purposes of advertising and promoting sales
to the public.
form a belief about the truth of the allegations regarding Defendant Carsforsale. Boolman
Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This is an action arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits the allegations of this action arise
under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1338(a).
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over all properly pled claims and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
8.
Page 3 of 17
9. Defendants are subject to both general and specific personal jurisdiction in Indiana.
Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability company and denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 9.
10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(a)
because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, Defendants engaged in
infringement in this district, Boolman resides in this district, and Defendants are subject to personal
jurisdiction in this district through their business activities.
Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability company and denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 10.
DEFENDANTS
11. Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company is an Indiana Limited
Liability Company, with its principal place of business at 1581 South 300 West, Portland, Indiana,
47371, and can be served by serving its Registered Agent, Lynn R. Boolman, at the same address.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability
company and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11.
12. Carsforsale.com, Inc. is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of South
Dakota, with its principal place of business at 2500 S. Westlake Drive, Sioux Falls, SD 57106.
Page 4 of 17
Carsforsale can be served through its registered agent Sean M. Coffman at 113 East Spruce,
Beresford, SD 57004-1827.
form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12.
THE COPYRIGHTED WORK AT ISSUE
13. In 2008, Stross created the photograph entitled “01478_plentyoftrees_2560x1600”,
which is shown below and referred to herein as the “Work”.
14. At the time Stross created the Work, he applied copyright management information
to the Work consisting of the words “Alexander Stross” to the bottom right corner, as shown in
part here:
Page 5 of 17
15. Stross registered the Work with the Register of Copyrights on December 15, 2008
and was assigned the registration number VAu 989-644. The Certificate of Registration is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports
to be a Certificate of Registration assigned the registration number VAu 989-644, but lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 15.
16. Stross' Work is protected by copyright but is not otherwise confidential, proprietary,
or trade secrets. The Work in perspective, orientation, positioning, lighting and other details is
entirely original, distinctive, and unique. As such, the Work qualifies as subject matter protectable
under the Copyright Act.
17. At all relevant times Stross was the owner of the copyrighted Work at issue in this
case.
Page 6 of 17
INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANT
18. Neither of the Defendants have ever been licensed to use the Work at issue in this
action for any purpose.
19. On a date after the Work at issue in this action was created, but prior to the filing of
this action, the Defendants copied the Work.
20. The unauthorized use of Stross’ Work was used commercially on the Website as
the background image on the main page, and remained active until at least February 19, 2021.
21. The Defendants copied Stross' copyrighted Work without Stross' permission.
Page 7 of 17
22. After the Defendants copied the Work, they made further copies and distributed the
Work on the internet to promote the sale of goods and services as part of their auto sales businesses.
23. The Defendants copied and distributed Stross' copyrighted Work in connection with
their business for purposes of advertising and promoting Boolman’s business, and in the course
and scope of advertising and selling products and services.
24. The Defendants committed copyright infringement of the Work as evidenced by the
documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
25. Stross never gave the Defendants permission or authority to copy, distribute or
display the Work at issue in this case.
Page 8 of 17
26. Stross notified Boolman of the allegations set forth herein on December 28, 2021
and January 18, 2022. To date, the parties have failed to resolve this matter.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits to receiving letters from counsel for
Stross dated December 28, 2021 and January 18, 2022, but denies the remaining allegations
of Paragraph 26.
27. When the Defendants copied and displayed the Work at issue in this case, they
removed Stross' copyright management information from the Work.
28. Stross never gave either of the Defendants permission or authority to remove
copyright management information from the Work at issue in this case.
Page 9 of 17
COUNT I
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
29. Stross incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales incorporates by reference its responses to the
foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
30. Stross owns a valid copyright in the Work at issue in this case.
31. Stross registered the Work at issue in this case with the Register of Copyrights
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).
32. The Defendants copied, displayed, and distributed the Work at issue in this case and
made derivatives of the Work without Stross' authorization in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501.
33. The Defendants performed the acts alleged in the course and scope of their business
activities.
Page 10 of 17
34. The Defendants’ acts were willful.
35. Stross has been damaged.
ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales denies the allegations of Paragraph 35.
36. The harm caused to Stross has been irreparable.
COUNT II
REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
37. Stross incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
38. The Work at issue in this case contains copyright management information (“CMI”)
in the form of Stross’ watermark in the bottom right corner.
Page 11 of 17
39. The Defendants knowingly and with the intent to enable or facilitate copyright
infringement, removed CMI from the Work at issue in this action in violation of 17 U.S.C. §
1202(b), as shown here:
40. The Defendants distributed the Work knowing that the CMI had been removed or
altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law.
41. The Defendants committed these acts knowing or having reasonable grounds to
know that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement of Stross' rights in the Work at
issue in this action protected under the Copyright Act.
Page 12 of 17
42. The Defendants caused, directed and authorized others commit these acts knowing
or having reasonable grounds to know that it would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal
infringement of Stross' rights in the Work at issue in this action protected under the Copyright Act.
COUNT III
ADDITION OF FALSE COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
45. Stross incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
46. The Work at issue in this case contains false copyright management information
(“False CMI”).
Page 13 of 17
47. The Defendants added its name, logo, and contact information to the Work for use
on the Website despite knowing that it was not the copyright owner of the Work, as shown in part
below:
48. The Defendants knowingly and with the intent to enable or facilitate copyright
infringement, added Boolman’s False CMI to the Work at issue in this action in violation of 17
U.S.C. § 1202(a).
49. The Defendants committed these acts knowing or having reasonable grounds to
know that it would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement of Stross' rights in the Work
at issue in this action protected under the Copyright Act.
Page 14 of 17
50. Boolman caused, directed and authorized others commit these acts knowing or
having reasonable grounds to know that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement of
Stross' rights in the Work at issue in this action protected under the Copyright Act.
51. After removing CMI from the Work, Boolman applied its own False CMI upon the
Work.
52. After applying the false CMI to the Work, Boolman published the Work in violation
of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense

(Innocent Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2))
Boolman Auto Sales’ alleged infringement is innocent.
Page 15 of 17
Second Affirmative Defense

(Fair Use – 17 U.S.C. § 107)
Boolman Auto Sales does not infringe because Boolman Auto Sales’ conduct falls
under the Copyright Act’s statutory Fair Use defense.
WHEREFORE, Lynn Boolman Auto Sales requests that Alexander Bayonne
Stross take nothing by way of his Complaint, that judgment be entered in favor of Lynn
Boolman Auto Sales and against Stross, that this case be declared an exceptional case, that
Lynn Boolman Auto Sales be awarded its fees and costs incurred in defending this case,
and for all other relief appropriate under the circumstances.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lynn Boolman Auto
Sales demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ D. Randall Brown
D. Randall Brown, (15127-49)
Michael E. Wever (26190-02)
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
888 South Harrison Street, Suite 600
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Telephone: (260) 425-4674
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant, Lynn Boolman

Auto Sales Limited Liability Company
Page 16 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing
to the following:
Evan A. Andersen
[email protected]
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
By: /s/ D. Randall Brown
Page 17 of 17

Lynn Boolman Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lynn Boolman Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lynn Boolman Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDC IN/ND case 3:23-cv-00061-DRL-MGG document 9 filed 03/28/23 page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ALEXANDER BAYONNE STROSS., )

DEFENDANT LYNN BOOLMAN AUTO SALES LIMITED LIABILITY

Defendant Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company (hereafter

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff ALEXANDER BAYONNE STROSS (“Stross”) brings this action for

Stross' original copyrighted Work of authorship.

U.S.C. § 106, but denies the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2.

expertise on complicated architectural photography and landscape photography. In 2016, Stross

by building an online system to help protect artists' works on the internet.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.

4. Defendant LYNN BOOLMAN AUTO SALES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability

company and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4.

5. Defendant CARSFORSALE.COM, INC. (“Carsforsale”) is an online marketplace

22,500 dealerships nationwide.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This is an action arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501.

under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

jurisdiction in this district through their business activities.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

allegations of Paragraph 10.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales admits that it is an Indiana limited liability

company and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12.

THE COPYRIGHTED WORK AT ISSUE

13. In 2008, Stross created the photograph entitled “01478_plentyoftrees_2560x1600”,

which is shown below and referred to herein as the “Work”.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14.

allegations in Paragraph 15.

under the Copyright Act.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief about the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 17.

action for any purpose.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18.

this action, the Defendants copied the Work.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

Auto Sales denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 21.

ANSWER: Boolman Auto Sales lacks knowledge or information sufficient to