future lawsuits.”). Randolph’s copyright infringement claims were objectively unreasonable. The need for deterrence supports an award of attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The need for compensation does not. d. Balancing the Factors The conclusion that Randolph’s claim was objectively unreasonable is entitled to “substantial weight in determinations whether to award attorneys’ fees.” Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ’g Co., 240 F.3d 116, 121 (2d Cir.2001); see also Creations Unlimited, 112 F.3d at 817; Positive Black Talk, Inc., 394 F.3d at 382-83; Virgin Records, 512 F.3d at 727 (all upholding decisions that denied fee awards only after finding that the plaintiffs claims were not objectively unreasonable); Budget Cinema, Inc. v. Watertower Assocs., 81 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to include in its attorneys fees award the depositionrelated travel expenses incurred by prevailing plaintiffs counsel in an adea case holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award attorneys fees based on the objective unreasonableness of plaintiffs complaint holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint