Lauren Gryniewski v. Sleep Number Corporation

Background

Plaintiff Lauren Gryniewski is a commercial architectural photographer and the sole owner and member of Plaintiff Round Three Photography, LLC ("Round Three"), which serves as the business entity for her photography work. On July 8, 2022, Round Three and Defendant Sleep Number Corporation executed a Photography Services Agreement (the "Agreement") under which Round Three granted Sleep Number a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use a photograph Gryniewski took of a Sleep Number retail store (the "Photograph").

The license was expressly conditioned on "full compliance with this Agreement," including an attribution requirement: Sleep Number agreed to "conspicuously indicate Photographer as the source of the Photographs" for "any and all use," and the Agreement stated that "[f]ailure to properly credit or tag Photographer will constitute copyright infringement."

Plaintiffs allege that between September 1, 2022, and November 26, 2024, Sleep Number used the Photograph on its website, in nationally televised commercials, on its YouTube channel, and made it available for high-resolution download — all without providing the required credit. Plaintiffs further allege that third parties copied and displayed the Photograph without authorization.

Procedural History

Gryniewski filed an initial Complaint on March 31, 2025, as the sole plaintiff. Sleep Number moved to dismiss that complaint, arguing Round Three (not Gryniewski individually) owned the copyright. In response, Gryniewski and Round Three executed two retroactive assignments in June 2025: the first assigned copyright ownership from Gryniewski to Round Three effective July 7, 2022; the second re-assigned those rights back to Gryniewski effective August 16, 2022. Plaintiffs then jointly filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2025, bringing three counts: (1) Copyright Infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; (2) Contributory Copyright Infringement; and (3) Removal and Alteration of Copyright Management Information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1202. Sleep Number moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). The original motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10) was denied as moot given the filing of the amended complaint.

Rule 12(b)(1) — Standing / Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Sleep Number argued that because Round Three, not Gryniewski individually, owned the copyright when the original Complaint was filed, Gryniewski lacked standing at the outset of the litigation, and that standing must exist at the time the case is initiated and cannot be cured retroactively.

Judge Tunheim rejected this argument on two independent grounds. First, the court was not persuaded that Gryniewski lacked standing at the time of the original filing, given her role as sole owner of Round Three and her prominent role under the Agreement. Second, and alternatively, the court found that even if a standing defect existed, the retroactive assignments were sufficient to cure it, citing Eighth Circuit precedent holding that an assignment of the right to sue made after suit was filed is valid where the defendant suffered no prejudice and the assignment simply prevented a later duplicative suit. See Dubuque Stone Products Co. v. Fred L. Gray Co., 356 F.2d 718, 724 (8th Cir. 1966). The court also noted that with both Gryniewski and Round Three now joined as plaintiffs, dismissal on standing grounds would be an inefficient result. The Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied.

Rule 12(b)(6) — Count 1: Copyright Infringement

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss — which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, not merely possible — Plaintiffs needed to allege facts supporting two theories.

Failure to Provide Attribution

Sleep Number argued that an author has no inherent right under copyright law to be credited, so failing to give credit cannot constitute copyright infringement. The court acknowledged this general principle but distinguished it: Plaintiffs did not assert a freestanding right to attribution. Instead, they argued that because the Agreement conditioned the entire license on Sleep Number providing credit, Sleep Number's failure to credit Plaintiffs meant the license never validly came into effect — making any use of the Photograph unauthorized.

The court applied the legal distinction between a covenant and a condition in copyright licensing: breach of a covenant gives rise to a breach-of-contract claim, while failure to satisfy a condition means the license never arose, which can give rise to copyright infringement. See Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236–37 (2d Cir. 1998). Because the Agreement stated the license was granted "on the condition of full compliance," the court found the attribution requirement plausibly operates as a condition rather than a mere covenant. The court acknowledged this case may fit more naturally as a breach-of-contract claim but found the copyright infringement theory plausibly alleged at this stage.

Exceeding Scope of License

The Agreement expressly authorized website and social media use but did not expressly authorize television advertising. The court found that whether television use was impliedly authorized is a factual question not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The allegation that Sleep Number used the Photograph in TV commercials independently supports a plausible copyright infringement claim.

The motion to dismiss Count 1 was denied.

Rule 12(b)(6) — Count 2: Contributory Copyright Infringement

Contributory copyright infringement (liability for another party's infringement, not one's own) can arise under three theories: (1) vicarious liability — having a financial interest in and the ability to supervise a direct infringer; (2) the inducement rule — actively encouraging another to infringe; or (3) contributory liability — knowingly causing or materially contributing to another's infringement.

The court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any of these theories: - No facts were alleged showing Sleep Number had the right or ability to supervise the alleged third-party infringers. - The allegation that Sleep Number "knowingly induced" infringement was a bare legal conclusion without supporting facts. - The allegation that Sleep Number "possessed direct knowledge" of contributory conduct was also conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

Count 2 was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Plaintiffs may potentially reassert this claim if they can allege sufficient supporting facts.

Rule 12(b)(6) — Count 3: DMCA — Copyright Management Information

Section 1202(b) of the DMCA prohibits intentionally removing or altering "copyright management information" (CMI) — such as the author's name and identifying information — from a work, or distributing a work knowing that CMI has been removed or altered without authorization.

Plaintiffs' Count 3 appeared to rest solely on Sleep Number's failure to provide the attribution required by the Agreement. The court found this insufficient because the DMCA requires that a defendant actually "remove or alter" existing CMI from the work — a passive failure to add a credit is not the same as actively removing existing information. Because Plaintiffs never alleged that Sleep Number removed or altered any CMI from the Photograph, they failed to state a claim under § 1202.

Count 3 was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Plaintiffs cannot refile this claim.

Summary of Rulings

- Rule 12(b)(1) motion (standing/jurisdiction): DENIED. - Count 1 — Copyright Infringement: Motion to dismiss DENIED; claim proceeds. - Count 2 — Contributory Infringement: Motion to dismiss GRANTED; dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. - Count 3 — DMCA § 1202: Motion to dismiss GRANTED; dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. - Original motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10): DENIED as moot.