(Declaratory Relief)  Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 86 of this   (Violation of 17 U.S.C. §1202)  Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 68 of this   10. organizations.     CoreLogic represents that its data includes more than 3.3 billion   11. property and financial records spanning more than 40 years.  CoreLogic represents its data includes more than 99 percent of U.S.   12. property records.    CoreLogic’s data includes photographs of real property created by   13. Plaintiff and the Class.  CoreLogic represents its data includes more than two million multiple   14. listing systems-based active property listings.  On information and belief, these  listings include photographs of real property created by Plaintiff and the Class.  CoreLogic offers three MLS technology products under its   15. MarketLinx® line: Fusion™, Innovia™ and Matrix™.   CoreLogic products allow users of its MLS products to upload   17. professional photographers.  See “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Dollars. True or  False?” at http://www.redfin.com/research/reports/special- reports/2010/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_dollars_true_or_false.html accessed  on July 14, 2013.  Adding additional photographs to a listing increases the price that can   18. be obtained for a property. See Benefield, at al., On the Relationship Between  Property Price, Time-on-Market, and Photo Depictions in a Multiple Listing  Service, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2011.  Copyright Management Information and the Adoption of the DMCA   All of the photographs at issue in this lawsuit created by Plaintiff and   19. the Class contained “copyright management information” (sometimes referred to as  “CMI”) as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. §1202(c).   17 U.S.C. §1202 was first considered by Congress in 1998 as part of   20. legislation designed to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization  (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (CT) and Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).   The text of Article 12 of the CT and Article 19 of the WPPT are   22. any person performing any of the following acts … having reasonable grounds to  know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement … (ii) to  distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without  authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management  information has been removed or altered without authority.”  Both the WPPT and CT define “rights management information” as   23. “information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any  right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work,  and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items  of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the  communication of a work to the public.”  Several bills with different names were introduced in the House of   25. information were expressed further in the Report’s discussion of the language  proposed for Section 1202.   This section does not mandate the use of CMI, nor does it prescribe the  choice of any particular type of CMI for those who do use it. It merely  protects the integrity of CMI if a party chooses to use it in connection with a  copyrighted work by prohibiting its deliberate deletion or alteration.  Furthermore, this section imposes liability for specified acts. It does not  address the question of liability for persons who manufacture devices or  provide services.  The DMCA was debated on the Senate floor on May 14, 1998.  During   27. protection the law provides against piracy. In statements and remarks before both  House and Senate, members of Congress repeatedly extolled the benefits of the  DMCA for the protections against piracy it would provide. The protection of  copyright management information integrity, and the prohibition against alteration,  removal or falsification of copyright management information, implements  Congress’ goal of preventing piracy.   As adopted, 17 U.S.C. §1202(c) provides:   29. copyright protection the moment the photograph was created, and copyright  management information (such as the name of the author or copyright owner) was  added to help maintain control of the photos and prevent copyright infringement.    One important purpose of copyright management information is to   31. falsified, Plaintiff and the Class may find it difficult or impossible to enforce their  rights under the Copyright Act.  For instance, Plaintiff and Class members may find  it more difficult or impossible to prove that their works were copied or used without  permission when copyright management information has been removed, altered or  falsified.  Additionally, subsequent infringers may claim that their copyright  infringement was innocent, because the copyright management information on the  infringing copy was removed, altered or falsified.  Further, it may be difficult or  impossible for a copyright owner to trace an infringer’s profits from an infringing  copy that has copyright management information removed, altered or falsified.  At the time photographs are uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product,   33. variety of tags can be included in metadata. Digital cameras record the current date  and time a photograph is created and save this data in metadata. Camera settings,  the model and make of camera, image orientation (rotation), aperture, shutter speed,  focal length, metering mode, and ISO speed information are also stored in  metadata, as is a thumbnail for previewing the picture on the camera's LCD screen,  in file managers, or in photo manipulation software.  Such information can be used  to identify the author or copyright owner of a photograph.     Metadata also stores copyright information, such as the name of   34. photographer and copyright owner, and permissions, if any, granted for use or  reserved to the owner. For example, the permissions tag might contain the words  “all rights reserved” to indicate to anyone who might encounter that image file that  all rights for the use of the image were reserved by the copyright owner and any  further use requires the owner’s permission.  Embedding metadata in image files is a standard technical measure   35. used by Plaintiff and the Class Members to identify and protect their copyrighted  works.    Image metadata was developed pursuant to a broad consensus of   37. extremely small when compared to the size of the digital image of the photograph  which may be a hundred times (e.g. 6.4 MB) larger or more.  All digital images uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product contained   38. copyright management information metadata.  Example of Plaintiff’s Copyright Management Information And Removal,  Alteration Or Falsification By CoreLogic  Robert Stevens is an accomplished real estate and architectural   39. photographer who works in South Florida.   On August 9, 2009, Stevens created an aerial photograph of a   40. residential condominium building located at 3800 N. Ocean Drive, Singer Island,  Florida known as Resort at Singer Island. Stevens processed the image and, since  he created it, he has licensed it for a fee to several real estate agents and brokers  who have marketed condominium units for sale at 3800 N. Ocean Drive.    The image in .jpg format that Stevens created and Stevens licensed to   42. for his use in connection with marketing properties at 3800 N. Ocean Drive. Mr.  O’Brien uploaded the image, with all metadata intact, to his listings with the  Realtors’ Association of the Palm Beaches (“RAPB”), a South Florida MLS.   RAPB is a client of CoreLogic and uses a CoreLogic MLS product to operate its  MLS business.    Stevens is not a member of RAPB or any other multiple listing service.   45. management information metadata Stevens had embedded in his images. Figure 3  (and Exhibit 3) shows a screenshot of 3800 N. Ocean Dr. downloaded from  RealQuest® stripped of all copyright management information metadata.    CoreLogic knew or had reasonable grounds to know that removal or   46. alteration of Stevens’ copyright management information would induce, enable,  facilitate or conceal copyright infringement.  Any use of Stevens’ copyrighted  images without his permission would constitute copyright infringement.    In fact, CoreLogic’s removal of Stevens’ copyright management   48. embedded copyright management information in the metadata of their images.  This  copyright management information metadata was present at the time it was  uploaded to an MLS operated or maintained by CoreLogic.  On information and  belief, CoreLogic removed, altered and/or falsified this copyright management  information after it was uploaded to an MLS operated or maintained by CoreLogic.  For instance, copyright management information in metadata was   50. was present in photographs of 915 Fawntail St., San Marcos, CA 92078 taken by a  professional real estate photographer.   After the photographs were uploaded to an  MLS operated or maintained by CoreLogic, the copyright management information  metadata embedded in those images was stripped out.  Upon information and belief,  CoreLogic stripped out the copyright management information metadata.   CoreLogic then copied one or more of these images into its RealQuest® database  and sold access to the database and reports produced by the database without the  photographer’s permission or authority and without compensation to the  photographer.   CoreLogic knew that it did not own the copyrights for the photographs   51. uploaded to an MLS via a product that CoreLogic had custody or control of.    CoreLogic knew that it did not have any written authorization from the   52. copyright owner to remove or alter copyright management information for the  photographs uploaded to an MLS via a product that CoreLogic had custody or  control of.  CoreLogic made no attempt to contact the photographers for   54. because CoreLogic violated 17 U.S.C. §1202 by removing, altering and/or  falsifying copyright management information of Plaintiff and Class for the  photographs uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product.   The Class is defined as all persons or entities that hold the copyright in   55. one or more images stored in a digital file with metadata containing copyright  management information that was uploaded to a multiple listing service via a  product in the custody or control of CoreLogic.  Excluded from the Class are (a)  defendant and any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; (b) the  employees, officers and directors of those identified in subparagraph (a); (c) the  heirs, successors, assigns and legal representatives of the persons identified in  subparagraph (b) above; and (d) a multiple listing service.  Plaintiff reserves the right to request creation of subclasses.  Plaintiff   56. also reserves the right to expand the Class or any subclass to include a multiple  listing service.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a   58. and/or entities in the Class are so numerous that their joinder is impractical.   Defendant represents over 2 million active MLS listings with photographs uploaded  via a product in the custody or control of CoreLogic.  Existence and Predominance of Common Question of Law and Fact--  61. an adequate representative of the Class and will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the Class. Plaintiff’s interests do not in any way conflict with the  interests of the members of the Class that he seeks to represent. Plaintiff is  committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action.  Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel experienced in complex class action litigation and experienced  in actions for copyright violations to represent him.  Injunctive Relief--Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2): CoreLogic has acted or   62. refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate  final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  Common Questions Predominate--Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3): As set   63. forth above, the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members.    Superior Method--Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(3):  A class action is   65. prosecution of separate actions is not strong given the relatively small amount of  damages that may be recovered as compared to the costs of litigating an individual  lawsuit.   Plaintiff is aware of no litigation concerning the same claims against   66. CoreLogic.  It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in the Southern District of   68. anticipates no undue difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action.   As set forth above, determination of the common issues set forth above can be  proven on a common basis and will result in a judgment in favor of the Class and  monetary relief that may be awarded on a common basis   Additionally, any award  of injunctive relief would apply to the Class as a whole.  69. complaint as if fully set forth herein.  Plaintiff and members of the Class hold the copyright in one or more   70. images stored in a digital file with metadata containing copyright management  information that was uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product.   Without the authority of Plaintiff and the Class, CoreLogic   72. to remove or alter copyright management information from digital images uploaded  to a CoreLogic MLS product within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. §1202(b).  CoreLogic intentionally removed or altered copyright management   73. information from digital images that are owned by Plaintiff and the Class after the  images were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product in violation of 17 U.S.C.  §1202(b)(1).  CoreLogic distributed copyright management information knowing   74. that the copyright management information had been removed or altered without  authority of the copyright owner or the law with respect to digital images that are  owned by Plaintiff and the Class that were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product  in violation of 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)(2).  CoreLogic distributed copies of works knowing that the copyright   75. management information had been removed or altered without authority of the  copyright owner or the law with respect to digital images that are owned by  Plaintiff and the Class that were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product in violation  of 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)(3).  CoreLogic removed or altered copyright management information   77. from digital images that are owned by Plaintiff and the Class after having  reasonable grounds to know that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal  infringement of copyright in violation of 17 U.S.C. §1202(b).  CoreLogic knowingly provided copyright management information   78. that is false with respect to digital images that are owned by Plaintiff and the Class  that were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product in violation of 17 U.S.C.  §1202(a)(1).  CoreLogic knowingly distributed copyright management information   79. that is false with respect to digital images that are owned by Plaintiff and the Class  that were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product within the meaning of 17 U.S.C.  §1202(a)(2).  CoreLogic provided or distributed false copyright management   8. companies submit listings to facilitate the exchange of information about one  another’s listings so agents can cross company lines to sell one another’s houses  and can show clients all houses on the market, not just those homes listed with their  own company.” Mid-America Real Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co., No. 4:04-CV- 10175, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10155, 2004 WL 1280895, at *2 (S.D. Iowa 2004).     Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) organizations typically require   80. information from digital images with respect to digital images that are owned by  Plaintiff and the Class that were uploaded to a CoreLogic MLS product with the  intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C.  §1202(a).  The profits attributable to CoreLogic’s violation of 17 U.S.C. §1202   82. members’ photographs are very lucrative and generate millions in revenues each  year.  CoreLogic did not request permission of Plaintiff and the Class to use   83. their images for CoreLogic’s non-MLS products.  CoreLogic’s 2013 revenues were over $1.3 billion.  CoreLogic is   85. Class members will suffer irreparable harm by depriving them of the right to  identify and control the reproduction and/or distribution of their copyrighted works,  to receive licensing revenue, and to pursue copyright infringement remedies.  The  balance of hardships tips in favor of Plaintiff and the Class because CoreLogic will  not be damaged if it is required to comply with 17 U.S.C. §1202.  Plaintiff and the  Class members are therefore entitled to an injunction barring CoreLogic from  violating 17 U.S.C. §1202 and impounding any device or product that is in the  custody or control of CoreLogic and that the court has reasonable cause to believe  was involved in a violation of 17 U.S.C. §1202.  Plaintiff and the Class pray for relief as set forth in the Prayer below.   86. 87. complaint as if fully set forth herein.  An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and the Class   89. CoreLogic’s actions are unlawful and, specifically, that CoreLogic violated their  rights under 17 U.S.C. § 1202.  To the extent CoreLogic argues it had authority from Plaintiff and   90. Class to undertake any of the actions set forth in 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)(1), (2) or (3)  without compensation to Plaintiff and the Class, a declaration that any such  authority has been revoked as a result of this lawsuit or has expired.    A declaration that CoreLogic did not request permission from Plaintiff   91. and the Class to use their photographs in connection with any non-MLS CoreLogic  products.  CoreLogic Data and MLS Products  “A multiple listing service is a common database where member   Plaintiff and the Class have brought this case against CoreLogic  