This Little Piggy Went to Trial (And Got Just $200 and No Fees)

Key Takeaways

• PFP sued over single pork chop photo, won $200 verdict.
• Jury rejected $23,976 damages demand, awarded minimal damages.
• Court denied $69k attorney fee request, no prevailing party.
• Case highlights limits of copyright troll settlement model.
• Similar rulings curb PFP’s default-judgment revenue strategy.

Summary

Prepared Food Photos, Inc., a stock food‑photo company known for aggressive copyright enforcement, sued a Milwaukee grocery store over a single pork‑chop image. The jury awarded only $200 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages, far below the $23,976 the plaintiff sought. The court also denied PFP’s request for $69,255 in attorney’s fees, finding no prevailing party. The verdict signals a growing pushback against the firm’s demand‑letter business model.

Pulse Analysis

The stock‑photo industry has long balanced licensing revenue with enforcement of copyright. Companies like Prepared Food Photos, Inc. (PFP) have built a niche by scanning the web for unlicensed uses and sending demand letters that cite steep subscription fees. While most targets settle, the model depends heavily on default judgments where defendants fail to appear, allowing plaintiffs to collect sizable sums without proving actual market value.

In the Jaber case, a Milwaukee grocery store posted a single pork‑chop picture sourced from Google. PFP pursued a $23,976 damages claim based on its $999‑per‑month subscription model, yet the jury awarded only $200 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages. The court further rejected a $69,255 request for attorney’s fees, noting the lack of a prevailing party and the disparity between the verdict and PFP’s claimed damages. This outcome aligns with recent decisions that compare stock‑photo licensing rates—often under $200 per image—to the inflated figures demanded by PFP.

The broader implication is a judicial tightening of copyright‑troll strategies. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing damage calculations that are untethered from real‑world licensing costs, especially when plaintiffs rely on default judgments. For businesses, the lesson is clear: maintain proper image licensing practices and be prepared to contest unreasonable fee demands. For the industry, the trend may push stock‑photo providers toward more transparent licensing structures and away from litigation‑centric revenue models, fostering a healthier balance between rights enforcement and fair market pricing.