The complaint
Banjo McLachlan v. Paradium.AI, Inc. f/k/a The Arena Group Holdings, Inc. and The Arena Media Brands, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-09868 (S.D.N.Y.), is a thirteen-page complaint filed November 10, 2026, ECF No. 1, with a jury demand.
The parties
McLachlan is described as a professional photographer and photojournalist. The complaint describes Paradium.AI, Inc. as a Delaware corporation based in New York, New York, that was known as The Arena Group Holdings, Inc. at the time of the alleged infringements and changed its legal name to Paradium.AI, Inc. in 2026, and The Arena Media Brands, LLC as a Delaware limited liability company based in New York, New York, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Paradium.AI. It alleges, on information and belief, that Arena Media owns the SURFER brand website at surfer.com and the SURFER trademarks, and it alleges that Paradium.AI operates the website within its Adventure Sports Network division and directs its editorial operation.
The photographs
The complaint alleges that McLachlan created a series of photographs of actor Nicolas Cage on location in Western Australia during the filming of the motion picture The Surfer, and that he first published each of the three photographs at issue on November 11, 2023. It alleges each was registered on December 31, 2023, under Registration No. VA 2-381-954, within three months after first publication, and it relies on 17 U.S.C. § 412(2) for statutory damages and attorney's fees. The Copyright Office record for VA 2-381-954 is a group registration of 535 published photographs, published from September 15, 2023 to November 11, 2023, registered December 31, 2023, with Banjo McLachlan as author and claimant.
What it alleges
The complaint alleges that on or about November 15, 2023, without permission, the defendants displayed the three photographs on surfer.com in an article titled "Leaked Footage: Nicolas Cage Fights Surf Gang While Filming New Movie," embedding them from a post on an Instagram account that is not affiliated with McLachlan. It alleges that the article's headline shows the defendants knew the photographs had not been released by their owner for publication on the website, and that the article was assigned, edited, approved, and published by the defendants as their own editorial content rather than stored at the direction of a user within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512. Allegations about the article's author acting as the defendants' employee or agent, the defendants' internal copyright policies, their control and monitoring of the website, and their financial benefit are made on information and belief.
McLachlan alleges he first observed the uses on November 27, 2023, that his counsel sent letters on May 31, 2024, and July 31, 2024, that the defendants did not respond to either letter, and that the photographs have since been removed from the website.
Claims and relief
The First Count pleads direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 against all defendants, and alleges willful infringement. The Second Count pleads vicarious copyright infringement against all defendants, in addition and in the alternative to the First Count, and alleges, on information and belief, that the vicarious infringement was willful.
McLachlan asks for a finding that the defendants infringed his copyright interest in the photographs by displaying them without a license or consent; actual damages and disgorgement of profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) or, at his election, statutory damages against the defendants, jointly and severally, for each work infringed under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), whichever is larger; an order under 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) enjoining the defendants from any infringing use of any of his works; costs and reasonable attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505; pre-judgment interest; and other relief the court deems just and proper.