ORDER

RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Yellow Pages Photos, Inc.,'s Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Award of Prejudgment Interest, Yellow Pages Group, LLC's Response in Opposition, and Defendant Ziplocal's Response.1 After careful consideration of the arguments made, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court concludes that permanent injunctive relief should be denied and prejudgment interest should be granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Third Amended Complaint seeks a permanent injunction against both Defendants Ziplocal, LP (Ziplocal) and Yellow Pages Group, LLC (Yellow Pages Group) in addition to damages.2 Specifically the Third Amended Complaint alleges the following:

The Joint Pretrial Statement includes, in the issues of law to be determined by the Court, whether Plaintiff would be entitled to injunctive relief if Ziplocal or Yellow Pages Group or both infringed Yellow Pages Photos' copyrights.4 On March 27, 2014, a jury awarded damages in the amount of $100,001.00 against Ziplocal for breach of contract, willful copyright infringement of 123 works ($1), and contributory copyright infringement of 123 works ($100,000.00); and $123,000.00 against Yellow Pages Group for willful copyright infringement of 123 works.5 Plaintiff now requests permanent injunctive relief against both Defendants.

ANALYSIS

The federal Copyright Act authorizes injunctive relief "on such terms as [the court] may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). To establish permanent injunctive relief, the Plaintiff must demonstrate 1) irreparable injury has been suffered, 2) damages do not adequately compensate, 3) the balance of hardships between the parties warrants equitable relief, and 4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Absent proof of the four factors, a permanent injunction does not automatically issue notwithstanding a finding of copyright infringement. eBay, 547 U.S. at 394. Although eBay involved patent infringement, the Eleventh Circuit has applied its holding to copyright cases. Peter Letterese & Assocs., Inc. v. World Inst. of Scientology Enters., Int'l, 533 F.3d 1287, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008).6 Relying on Peter Letterese & Assocs., many courts have refrained from automatically granting injunctive relief in copyright infringement cases.7

Looking at the factors of irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law,8 the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that it will likely suffer irreparable harm in the future such that the damages already awarded by the jury will not adequately compensate for any losses. At the time of trial, and according to its sealed financial records, Plaintiff had not secured new customers since 2009. As the income from Plaintiff's photos and licensing revenues declined, Plaintiff did not obtain new customers, although Plaintiff's principal continued to attempt to market the photos and entered into negotiations to sell licenses to no avail. Without a new market or income stream derived from photos or licenses for approximately five years, Plaintiff is unable to show that it would be irreparably harmed by loss of income.

In addition to the lack of irreparable harm, Plaintiff's principal's testimony supports a finding that damages provide an adequate remedy at law, thereby negating the necessity of entering permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiff's principal testified that a monetary award would compensate him for Plaintiff's losses in the market. The Court concludes that the jury's finding of willful infringement on the part of both Defendants and ensuing damage award, provides an adequate remedy at law for Plaintiff's losses.

With respect to prejudgment interest, the Court finds that an award of prejudgment interest is warranted under the general premise that prejudgment interest is presumptively available for willful infringement under the Copyright Act. See Due Process, Ltd. v. Alternative Debt Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1428661, at *5 (N.D. Fla. May 14, 2007) (citing McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557, 572-73 (7th Cir. 2003) and other circuit court cases). The rate of prejudgment interest may be determined from state law or, in some instances, by using the 52-week Treasury bill rate. See Due Process, at *5 (awarding prejudgment interest using Florida statutory rate in copyright infringement case and citing Seb S.A. v. Sunbeam Corp., 476 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2007), a breach of contract case); Sky Cable, LLC v. Coley, 2014 WL 279592, at *3 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2014) (finding that in federal question jurisdiction cases, district court is not bound by state rate of prejudgment interest); Oracle USA, Inc. v. Qtrax, Inc., 2011 WL 4853436, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) (exercising discretion in copyright infringement case based on breach of contract to apply state rate of prejudgment interest). Applying section 55.03 of the Florida Statutes, the statutory annual rate of interest for 2010 through September 30, 2011, is 6 % with a daily rate of 0.01644%, and the statutory annual rate of interest from October 1, 2011, through May 2014 is 4.75% with a daily rate of 0.0130137%.9 The Court adopts Plaintiff's reasoning that prejudgment interest should begin on November 1, 2010, the date of the outsourcing agreement between the two Defendants, and should end on the date of the judgment, May 5, 2014. Accordingly, the prejudgment interest to be awarded against Ziplocal is $17,811.43, and against Yellow Pages Group is $21,914.95.

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.