Sued by Doniger / Burroughs? What a New York Business Owner Needs to Know

If your business was just served with a federal lawsuit over a photo on your website or your Instagram account, and the lawyers on the last page are Doniger / Burroughs, you are far from alone: the firm has filed about 40 of these suits in New York this year. It represents photographers, photo agencies and designers, and nearly all of its New York cases are filed in the federal court in Manhattan.

My name is Michael Samuel. I have practiced law in New York since 1993, and I defend businesses that are sued in the federal courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn. This article explains who the firm is, what the phrases in its complaints mean, why businesses that paid for a stock license get sued too, and what to do in the first week.

The most important fact first. In federal court you generally have 21 days from the day you were served to respond, or 60 days if you agreed to waive formal service. If nobody responds in time, the plaintiff can ask the court for a default judgment, which usually includes damages and the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.

Doniger / Burroughs is a copyright, trademark and right of publicity firm based in Venice, California, with a New York office on Water Street near the South Street Seaport. Its New York complaints list Scott Alan Burroughs, David Jenkins or Alexandra Licitra as counsel.

The firm’s clients are the people who make images for a living. In New York this year they include an architectural and interiors photographer from Westchester, a photographer whose food images are behind eight suits, another photographer with six suits of his own, two photo agencies, an estate and a design company.

The businesses on the other side are a wide mix: food and wellness brands, real estate brokerages, a restoration company in Astoria, a lighting company, a cruise line, a Times Square retailer, national chains and a long list of news and entertainment websites. In most cases the image appeared on the company’s website or in a post on its Instagram or Facebook account.

These suits rarely come out of nowhere. The complaints describe a letter, or several, sent before suing, sometimes many months earlier. If you remember a letter from this firm that went unanswered, that is usually how the case got here.

If your lawsuit was filed by a different firm, Sanders Law Group files even more of these cases in New York. See what to know if you were sued by Sanders Law Group.

Doniger / Burroughs complaints follow a pattern. Here is what the parts that worry people actually mean.

“Does 1 through 10.” These are placeholders for people or companies the plaintiff hasn’t identified yet, such as whoever supplied or posted the image. The complaint says the plaintiff will ask to add their real names later. It does not mean ten more defendants already exist.

“Willful, intentional and malicious.” The complaints allege this as a matter of course, often next to the figure of $150,000 per infringement. That number is the legal ceiling for statutory damages when infringement is proven willful, not a typical result. Willfulness has to be proven, and courts in Manhattan have often awarded a small multiple of the normal licensing fee when businesses never defended at all.

“Statutory damages … to the extent available.” This phrase matters. Statutory damages and attorney’s fees are only available if the photo was registered with the Copyright Office before your use began, or within three months after the photo was first published. If it wasn’t, the plaintiff is usually limited to actual damages, often close to a normal license fee, plus any profits it can tie to the photo.

“Disgorgement of profits.” To recover your profits, the plaintiff has to show revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not just your total sales. For one image in a blog post or a social media post, that is hard to do.

“Vicarious and/or contributory infringement.” A second claim aimed at anyone who supervised, profited from or helped spread the use. It is how one complaint reaches several companies, such as a website and the company that manages it.

“Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202.” Some complaints add a claim that the photographer’s name or file metadata was removed. That claim carries its own damages of $2,500 to $25,000 per violation, but it requires proof that the defendant knew the information had been removed. In February 2026 the Second Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers New York, rejected this claim in a Doniger / Burroughs case against Shutterstock because nothing showed the company knew. The site’s software had stripped the metadata automatically.

Many business owners are sure they did nothing wrong because they paid for the image. That can matter a great deal, but it doesn’t always end the case.

A stock license is only as good as the uploader’s rights. In a case decided in February 2026, the court described how 337 of one photographer’s pictures had been uploaded to Shutterstock by three contributors who didn’t own them, and 165 were licensed to customers. This year the same photographer, represented by Doniger / Burroughs, has sued websites that used his photos together with Shutterstock itself, saying the stock site had no right to license them.

If you bought a license, you are not out of options. Copyright infringement doesn’t depend on intent, so a license from someone who didn’t own the photo usually isn’t a complete defense on its own. But your license may come with a promise from the stock company to cover claims like this one. Shutterstock’s standard license, for example, includes up to $10,000 of indemnification, and its enhanced license up to $250,000 per image. Find the license, read the indemnification section, and notify the company in writing as the license requires.

If a web designer, agency or employee added the image, your business is usually still responsible for what appears on its own website and accounts. Your contract with the designer may say who pays, so find it early.

Check your insurance too. Many standard business liability policies cover copyright claims that arise from your own advertising, which can include your website and social media posts about your products and services. Coverage depends on the exact policy, and late notice can cost you coverage, so tell your insurer promptly.

1. Write down your deadline. Count 21 days from the day you were served, or 60 days if you signed a waiver of service, and get a lawyer involved well before the last day.
2. Read every order on the court docket, not just the complaint. Judges in Manhattan sometimes set their own steps in these cases. In one 2026 case, the judge ordered the two sides to meet within 30 days of service to try to settle and paused the answer deadline until they reported back. Don’t assume that applies to you unless an order in your case says so.
3. Save the evidence, then take the image down. Take dated screenshots of every page and post that shows it, then remove it. Taking it down doesn’t erase a claim for past use, but courts look at how a business responded.
4. Find out where the image came from. Who added it, when, and from where: a stock site, a designer, a manufacturer’s press kit, or a search result. Gather any license, invoice or email about it.
5. Find the old letters. If the firm wrote to you before suing, those letters show what it asked for and when, which helps a lawyer see how the claim has been built.
6. Notify the people who may share the cost. The stock company under your license, your designer under your contract, and your insurer under your policy.
7. Don’t call the firm yourself. Let your lawyer make the first contact. What you say about how the image was used can be used against you.

Many of these cases are resolved within a few months once the registration date, the license fee and the source of the image have been checked. In one 2026 case against a lighting company, the court was told the case had settled about four months after it was filed.

Michael Samuel is a New York litigator, in practice since 1993 and admitted in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, who defends businesses sued in federal court in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

In a photo case, we start with the dates: when the photo was published and registered, when your use began, and when the plaintiff says it found it. Those dates often decide what the plaintiff can recover. Then we look at where the image came from and who else may be responsible, including a stock company, a designer or an insurer, and tell you what a realistic resolution looks like before you decide anything.

The fee is quoted up front, before you commit, and the first strategy session is free.