HOUSTON – A Texas woman's lawsuit against a Canadian-based stock image company over photos of her as a minor allegedly uploaded without parental consent was recently dismissed by a state appeals court. The court also overturned a lower court's denial of the company's motion for special appearance.
Stocksy United, which does not have a registered agent in the United States and was being sued under the Hague Service Convention, filed its interlocutory appeal after a Harris County district court denied the company's special appearance. The trial court found that "an agency relationship" existed between the company and a contributor who allegedly uploaded images of a then-teenager, appellee Savannah Morris, without parental consent.
"We reverse the trial court's order overruling Stocksy's special appearance and render judgment dismissing Morris' claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction," a Texas First District Court of Appeal three-judge panel said in its 21-page opinion issued Dec. 21.
| MorgueFile - davidpwhelan
Chief Justice Sherry Radack wrote the opinion in which Justice Evelyn Keyes and Justice Julie Countiss concurred.
The case stems from photographs taken in February 2015 by Texan Kristen Curette of Savannah Morris, another Texas resident, which Curette later uploaded onto a Stocksy United website without Morris' effective consent, according to the background portion of the appeals court's opinion. Stocksy United later licensed the photographs to various third parties throughout the world.
Stocksy United, based in Victoria, British Columbia, is a privately held company that maintains a cooperative platform that accepts and provides royalty-free stock photography and stock video.
Curette has been a Stocksy contributor since February 2013.
Morris was a minor at the time the photos were taken and the photographs were taken in Texas, according to the opinion.
After Morris sued in October 2017 over allegations of misappropriation of likeness, Stocksy filed a special appearance, to which Morris responded that Stocksy is subject to specific jurisdiction because Curette had acted as the stock image company's agent.
"The trial court agreed with Morris," the opinion said.
The appeals court disagreed.
"We hold that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's legal conclusion that Curette acted as Stocksy's agent and that Morris has not otherwise alleged facts that, if true, bring Stocksy within the reach of Texas' long-arm statute," Radack wrote. "Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order, grant Stocksy's special appearance, and dismiss Morris' claim against Stocksy for lack of personal jurisdiction."