govinfo:USCOURTS-arwd-5_25-cv-05075-0

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 own ed 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 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 wer e 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 with out 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 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 th ere to be a genuine issue of 
material fact that would preclude summary judgment, the non -moving party 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 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. 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 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight