Tag: Ninth Circuit

Categories
Copyright Damages

Ninth Circuit Narrows Copyright Owner’s Ability to Receive Multiple Statutory Damages Awards

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksBy Liz Velander

A recent Ninth Circuit ruling limits the amount a copyright owner can be awarded in statutory damages. In Desire v. Manna, the court found that the Copyright Act only lets owners collect a single award per infringing work in cases with joint and several liability. It held that the Act does not authorize multiple statutory damages awards where one infringer is jointly and severally liable with all other infringers, but the other infringers are not completely jointly and severally liable with one another. Its decision reduced the district court’s award of statutory damages from $480,000 to $150,000.

The facts of the case are as follows: Desire, a fabric supplier, purchased a floral textile design and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in June 2015. A few months later, Desire sold a few yards of fabric bearing the design to Top Fashion, which it used to secure a garment order from a clothing retailer. When Desire and Top Fashion later disagreed on the price for more fabric, Top Fashion took the design to rival supplier Manna. Manna then passed the design along to an independent designer, who in turn gave it to a textile manufacturer with instructions to modify it. Manna registered a copyright in the resulting altered design with the U.S. Copyright Office in December 2015.

Manna began selling fabric bearing the altered design to various manufacturers, which used it to create garments that they sold to various clothing retailers. Desire sued Manna, the manufacturers, and the retailers for copyright infringement. As alleged, Manna infringed Desire’s copyright by selling fabric bearing the altered design to the manufacturer defendants. The manufacturer defendants then each allegedly committed a separate ac of infringement in their sales to the individual retail defendants, who in turn allegedly committed acts of infringement in their sales to consumers. Desire did not allege that the manufacturer defendants infringed in concert, nor that the retail defendants acted in concert to infringe Desire’s copyright.

The district court granted partial summary judgment for Desire. It concluded that Desire owned a valid copyright entitled to broad protection and that there were no triable issues of fact as to Desire’s ownership of the initial design or Manna’s and others’ access to it. But there remained issues of triable fact as to whether the altered design was substantially similar to the original and whether defendants willfully infringed. The district court held that if Desire prevailed on these issues, the supplier would be entitled to seven statutory damages awards with joint and several liability imposed amongst Manna, the manufacturer defendants, and the retail defendants.

A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Manna, Top Fashion, and one other defendant, manufacturer ABN, willfully infringed the initial design, and that two other defendants, manufacturer Pride & Joys and retailer 618 Main, innocently infringed. Desire elected to claim statutory damages in lieu of actual damages, as permitted under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Under § 504(c), a statutory damage award is limited to $30,000 for innocent infringement and $150,000 for willful infringement.

The jury awarded Desire statutory damages totaling $480,000 after two defendants settled. The district court divided liability under its pre-trial ruling as follows:

    1. $150,000 against Manna individually, for copying the design and distributing the fabric bearing the altered design to the manufacturer defendants.

 

    1. $150,000 against Manna and Top Fashion jointly and severally, for Top Fashion’s sale of infringing garments.

 

    1. $150,000 against Manna and ABN jointly and severally, for ABN’s sale of infringing garments.

 

    1. $20,000 against Manna and Pride & Joys jointly and severally, for ABN’s sale of infringing garments to 618 Main.

 

  1. $10,000 against 618 Main, Pride & Joys, and Manna jointly and severally, for 618 Main’s display and sale of infringing garments to consumers.

The parties appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated the judgment awarding Desire multiple awards of statutory damages. The court began by affirming the district court’s determinations at summary judgment that Desire owned a valid copyright and that the original design was entitled to broad copyright protection. But the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by permitting multiple statutory damages awards.

The Ninth Circuit looked at the text of § 504(c)(1) to determine whether it authorizes multiple statutory damages awards where one infringer is jointly and severally liable with all other infringers, but the other infringers are not completely jointly and severally liable with one another. § 504(c)(1) permits an owner to recover “an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally.”

The Court concluded that the plain meaning of § 504(c)(1) precludes multiple awards of statutory damages when there is only one work infringed by a group of defendants that have partial joint and several liability among themselves through a prime tortfeasor that is jointly and severally liable with every other defendant. It reasoned that “an award” clearly means one award, and the use of the word “any” means that, if all infringers in the action were jointly and severally liable with at least one common infringer, then all defendants should be treated as one unit.

In this case, Manna was alleged to be the tortfeasor lynchpin. Because “‘an award’ clearly means one award,” and Manna was jointly and severally liable with every other defendant, Desire was entitled to only one statutory damage award per work. The court concluded that its interpretation was most consistent with the Copyright Act’s goal of providing adequate compensation for infringement without giving copyright owners a windfall. However, it acknowledged that its ruling could also run afoul of the purposes of the Act if a copyright owner decided to sue separate infringers in separate actions.

The court wrote in a footnote that “if Manna were not involved at all and Pride & Joys, ABN, and Top Fashion had independently infringed, there could be three awards, even though Pride & Joys, ABN, and Top Fashion were each jointly and severally liable with others in their separate distribution chains. . . . This view treats groups of jointly and severally liable defendants that are not jointly and severally liable with other groups identically to individually liable infringers.”

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Wardlaw disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of § 504(c)(1). She explained that the majority’s decision means “a copyright plaintiff can seek only one award of statutory damages when it joins in a single lawsuit members of independently infringing distribution chains that trace back to a common infringing source. But if the plaintiff brings separate lawsuits against each infringer, or it simply cuts the common source defendant at the top of the chain out of the case, a separate statutory damages award is available against each defendant.”

The majority ultimately decided that such risk was outweighed by the potential for disproportionate awards and the fact that multiple lawsuits could still be filed (and consolidated), regardless of the Court’s ruling on this point. “But even if we are wrong in our appraisal of the multiple-lawsuit risk, as our approach is the only one consistent with the text of Section 504(c)(1), it is not our job to reweigh the merits of several possible approaches.” Given the stark differences in the majority and the dissent regarding the language of § 504(c)(1), this decision could form the basis for further splits and result in an en banc or certiorari petition.

Categories
Copyright

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Transformative Fair Use in Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksThis past Friday, the Ninth Circuit handed down its opinion in Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, a closely watched transformative fair use case. The decision marks an important milestone in the development of the fair use doctrine, especially as applied to mash-ups—where two or more preexisting works are blended together to create a new work. However, the court’s careful explanation of what constitutes transformativeness is not limited to mash-ups, and it will surely be influential for years to come. In this post, I’ll look at the various views expressed by the parties, amici, and courts as to what it means for a use to be transformative, and I’ll explain how the Ninth Circuit’s new guidance on transformativeness reins in some of the overly broad positions that have been urged. This decision should be welcome news for those who worry that a copyright owner’s right to make derivative works has been excessively narrowed by ever-expanding notions of transformative use.

In Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, the plaintiff, Dr. Seuss Enterprises L.P. (Seuss), was the assignee of the copyrights to the works by Theodor S. Geisel, the late author who wrote under the pseudonym “Dr. Seuss.” Seuss sued the defendants, ComicMix LLC and three individuals (collectively, ComicMix), for copyright infringement over, inter alia, ComicMix’s mash-up of Seuss’ iconic Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (Go!) with a Star Trek theme, entitled Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! (Boldly). The Boldly mash-up featured slavish copies of the images and overall look and feel of Go!, but with the Seussian characters replaced with the crew of the Enterprise from Star Trek and the text and imagery reinterpreted for Trekkies.

ComicMix admitted that it copied Go! to create Boldly, and the issue on appeal was whether its use was fair. The district court held that it was fair use, finding in particular that ComicMix’s mash-up was “highly transformative.” After the decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, there were amicus briefs filed for both sides. Some argued that Boldly was transformative, and others argued that it was not. In the opinion for the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel by Judge McKeown, the court held that Boldly wasn’t transformative at all. This decision gives us what is perhaps the clearest explanation of what it means to be a transformative use to date by an appellate court. And the fact that it comes from the Ninth Circuit—the “Hollywood Circuit” as Judge Kozinski once called it—makes it all the more interesting and important.

The issue of transformativeness is primarily analyzed under the first fair use factor, i.e., the purpose and character of the use, but it also weighs heavily on the other three factors. If the use is transformative, courts often ignore the creativeness of the original work, give the copyist more leeway when assessing the amount and substantiality of the use, and overlook the copyist’s effect on the potential market for the original work. As some have observed, in a transformative use case, the fair use analysis tends to collapse into a single factor: Is the use transformative? Indeed, Jiarui Liu published a study last year showing that “transformative use appears to be nearly sufficient for a finding of fair use.” Once the dispositive decisions included in the study found transformative use, they eventually held that there was fair use 94% of the time.

District Court Finds Boldly Is “Highly Transformative”

In the district court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with ComicMix claiming fair use. The court had assessed fair use earlier in the litigation when denying ComicMix’s motion to dismiss. There, the court rejected ComicMix’s contention that Boldly was a parody, reasoning that it did not comment on or criticize the original work. Parodies juxtapose the original work for comedic effect, and the necessity of referencing the original justifies the copying. However, the court found that there was no such juxtaposition here, instead noting that Boldly merely used the “illustration style and story format as a means of conveying particular adventures and tropes from the Star Trek canon.” Nevertheless, the court found that Boldly was “no doubt transformative” since it “combine[d] into a completely unique work the two disparate worlds of Dr. Seuss and Star Trek.” Even though many elements were copied, the court reasoned that Go! had been “repurposed” because ComicMix added “original writing and illustrations” that transformed its Seussian pages into “Star-Trek-centric ones.”

The district court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss as it had to take Seuss’ allegations of market harm in the complaint as true and there was no evidence to the contrary in the record. Lacking evidence of market harm, the court found a “near-perfect balancing of the factors” and held that ComicMix’s “fair use defense currently fails as a matter of law.” However, once the court turned to the summary judgment motions, it had a developed record from which to work. On market harm, the court placed the burden on Seuss—despite fair use being an affirmative defense—and found that it failed to demonstrate likely harm to Go! or its licensed derivatives. On the issue of transformativeness, the court adopted and then expanded on its reasoning when addressing the motion to dismiss.

Suess had asked the district court to reassess its fair use analysis given the intervening Federal Circuit decision in Oracle v. Google. In that case, it was not fair use when Google copied computer code verbatim and then added its own code. The court here distinguished Oracle, reasoning that ComicMix did not copy the text or illustrations of Go! verbatim. While ComicMix “certainly borrowed from Go!—at times liberally—the elements borrowed were always adapted or transformed,” and that made Boldly “highly transformative.” Furthermore, the court found that Go! and Boldly served different purposes, with the former aimed at graduates and the latter tailored towards Trekkies. And to Seuss’ argument that Boldly was a derivative work, the court responded that derivative works can be transformative and constitute fair use.

Strangely, when addressing the motion to dismiss and the summary judgment motions, the district court failed to cite the holding of Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books—even though that binding precedent involved the same plaintiff making similar arguments about a similar mash-up (there, Dr. Seuss and the O.J. Simpson murder trial). In Penguin Books, the Ninth Circuit held that the accused mash-up, The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, was neither parody nor fair use. Rather than ridiculing the Seussian style itself, the court held that it merely copied that style “to get attention” or perhaps “to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh”—as the Supreme Court put it in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Indeed, because the mash-up failed to conjure up the substance of the original work by focusing readers instead to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the court held that there was “no effort to create a transformative work with ‘new expression, meaning, or message’” as required by Campbell.

Amicus Briefs Offer Differing Views on Transformativeness

Once the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, amicus briefs were filed on both sides addressing the transformativeness issue. Some argued that Boldly epitomized transformative fair use, and others argued that it was the antithesis. It is difficult to exaggerate the doctrinal gulf between the views of these amici.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) amicus brief, by Jacqueline Charlesworth, argued that ComicMix’s use was not transformative since it failed to comment on or add new meaning to Go! and instead merely used it as a vehicle to achieve the same purpose—entertaining and inspiring readers. Moreover, ComicMix admitted that it could have used a different book on which to base its mash-up, thus defeating any claim of necessity. The MPA brief explained that Boldly was indeed a derivative work (the district court had expressively reserved the point) as defined by the Copyright Act since it transformed or adapted a preexisting work. The district court had dismissed Suess’ argument that Boldly was a derivative work by pointing out that it transformed and adapted Go!, but the MPA brief called this “troubling logic” since it conflated derivativeness with transformativeness and presumably would make every derivative work a transformative fair use.

Peter Menell filed an amicus brief, joined by Shyam Balganesh and David Nimmer, taking issue with the district court’s “categorical determination” that mash-ups generally are “highly transformative” as it would “undermine[] the Copyright Act’s right to prepare derivative works.” The Menell brief argued that Boldly “might well strike a lay observer as clever, engaging, and even transformative in a common parlance sense of the term,” but this misunderstands the transformativeness inquiry, which turns on whether it “serves a different privileged purpose” such that it survives the “justificatory gauntlet.” The question was whether Boldly “merely supersede[d] the objects of the original” or instead used the copied material “in a different manner or for a different purpose.” Here, the Menell brief concluded, Boldly drew on Go!’s popularity to follow its same general entertaining purpose while adding little “new insight and understanding.”

Sesame Workshop filed an amicus brief by Dean Marks distinguishing transformativeness for derivative works from transformative use under the first fair use factor and arguing that the district court conflated the two. The Sesame brief explained that Boldly was only transformative in the fair use sense if it, per Campbell, added “something new, with a further purpose or different character” as “commentary” and provided “social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work.” While Boldly did add new material, it did not add “any new meaning or message” or “provide any new insight or commentary on Go!.” It instead delivered “the exact same inspirational message” to appeal to Seuss’ “existing market.” The danger of the district court’s logic, the Sesame brief concluded, is that it “could stand for the proposition that all mash-ups constitute fair use, a holding that would greatly diminish the derivative work right.”

An amicus brief by Erik Stallman on behalf of a group of IP professors, including Mark Lemley, Jessica Litman, Lydia Loren, Pam Samuelson, and Rebecca Tushnet, took a broad view of transformative fair use, arguing that the district court properly did not require Boldly to criticize, comment on, or parody Go! itself. It also claimed that fair use is not an affirmative defense such that the district court properly put the burden on Seuss to show market harm. The crux of the IP professor brief was that, even though on a high level of abstraction both works had the same entertainment purpose, there were nonetheless “differences in expressive meaning or message” that made Boldly transformative. As there were such differences at a lower level of abstraction—e.g., Go! had a “hyper-individualistic character” while Boldly focused on “institutional structures that promote discovery through” combined “efforts”—the IP professor brief concluded that it was transformative in the fair use sense.

Finally, an amicus brief by Mason Kortz on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Organization for Transformative Works, Public Knowledge, and others concluded that “Boldly is a significantly transformative work” that “recasts, recontextualizes, and adds new expression or meaning to Go! in order to create a new, significant work of creative expression.” The EFF brief argued that uses can be transformative even if “they fail to comment on or parody the original” so long as they have different “expressive content and message.” Here, Boldly was transformative because it “adapt[ed] the stylistic, visual, and rhyming elements from Go! to create new expression” and added “new meanings that speak with particularity to the themes of Star Trek beloved by its community of fans.”

Ninth Circuit Holds that Boldly Is Not Transformative

Turning back to the parties, Seuss argued on appeal that ComicMix’s “use was exploitative and intended to grab the attention of potential buyers, not transformative,” since it added no “new purpose or meaning.” ComicMix answered that its use was “highly transformative,” with a “radically distinct purpose and effect,” that crafted “new meanings from the interplay between Star Trek’s and Seuss’s creative worlds.” Judge McKeown, writing for the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, sided completely with Seuss: While the “fair use analysis can be elusive,” if not metaphysical, “[n]ot so with this case.” The court held that “Boldly is not transformative” and that all of the fair use “factors decisively weigh against ComicMix.”

Quoting Campbell, the court started with the premise that a transformative work “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message,” and a work that “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation” is not transformative. It also noted Campbell’s explanation that commentary with “no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original” and which is used “to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh” has less—if any—claim to fair use. The court then cited to its previous holding in Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books (mentioned above as having been ignored by the district court below despite the glaring similarities) that the mash-up at issue there merely copied the Seussian style without critiquing it. The court there held that the defendant was only trying “to get attention,” and the court here found that the same result holds true. ComicMix’s “post-hoc characterization” that it was “criticizing the theme of banal narcissism of Go!” or “mocking the purported self-importance of its characters falls flat.”

The court then turned to ComicMix’s argument that, even if Boldly was not a parody or a critique, it was nonetheless transformative since it substituted Seussian characters and elements with Star Trek themes. The court rejected this framing as foreclosed by Penguin Books, noting that it “leverage[s] Dr. Seuss’s characters without having a new purpose or giving Dr. Seuss’s works new meaning.” And without “new expression, meaning or message” that alters Go!, ComicMix merely added “Star Trek material on top of what it meticulously copied” and failed to engage in transformative use. Helpfully, the court laid out three “benchmarks of transformative use,” which it gleaned from Campbell and Ninth Circuit precedent, to explain why Boldly was not transformative: “Boldly possesses none of these qualities; it merely repackaged Go!.”

First, the “telltale signs of transformative use” include a “‘further purpose or different character’ in the defendant’s work, i.e., ‘the creation of new information, new aesthetic, new insights and understanding.’” The court found that Boldly had neither a further purpose nor a different character since it paralleled the purpose of Go! and propounded its same message. Without a “new purpose or character” that would make it transformative, the court found that Boldly “merely recontextualized the original expression by ‘plucking the most visually arresting excerpt[s].”

The second of the “telltale signs” looks for “‘new expression, meaning, or message’ in the original work, i.e., the addition of ‘value to the original.’” The court found that ComicMix likewise failed to do this: “While Boldly may have altered Star Trek by sending Captain Kirk and his crew to a strange new world, that world, the world of Go!, remains intact.” The court’s focus was on whether Boldly changed Go! itself or merely repackaged it into a new format. Here, “Boldly does not change Go!,” and ComicMix’s admission that it could have used another work as the basis of its mash-up indicated that “Go! was selected ‘to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,’ and not for a transformative purpose.”

The last of the “telltale signs” considers “the use of quoted matter as ‘raw material,’ instead of repackaging it and ‘merely supersed[ing] the objects of the original creation.’” The court, embedding several side-by-side images into the opinion to demonstrate the point, found that Boldly merely repackaged Go!. For the illustrations, the “Star Trek characters step into the shoes of Seussian characters in a Seussian world that is otherwise unchanged.” And for the text, rather than “using the Go! story as a starting point for a different artistic or aesthetic expression,” ComicMix instead matched its structure in a way that “did not result in the Go! story taking on a new expression, meaning, or message.” Since Boldly “left the inherent character of the [book] unchanged, it was not a transformative use of Go!.”

The court concluded that, “[a]lthough ComicMix’s work need not boldly go where no one has gone before, its repackaging, copying, and lack of critique of Seuss, coupled with its commercial use of Go!, does not result in a transformative use.” The first fair use factor thus “weigh[ed] definitively against fair use,” and the court went on to find that the other three factors favored Suess as well—without transformativeness to drive the analysis, ComicMix could not get the court to put its thumb on the scale in favor of fair use. Importantly, the court also rejected the holding below that the burden of proving likely market harm rested on Seuss: “the Supreme Court and our circuit have unequivocally placed the burden of proof on the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use.” Additionally, the court chastised ComicMix for failing to address the “crucial right” of “the derivative works market,” noting that Boldly would likely “curtail Go!’s potential market for derivative works,” especially given that Seuss had “engaged extensively for decades” in this area.

Conclusion

All-in-all, the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a welcome development to the doctrine of fair use. Since Campbell was handed down over one-quarter of a century ago, the notion of transformativeness has taken on a central role—one that appears to be shrinking the exclusive right to prepare derivative works while expanding what it means to be transformative fair use. The accused work at issue here—Boldly—used the original work to create new expression, but lacking was any justification for the taking. ComicMix could have used any number of works for its mash-up, and the same nontransformative repackaging would have occurred because ComicMix’s purpose would not be tied to the particular work onto which it transposed the Star Trek universe. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit was able to distinguish the transformative nature of a derivative work from the transformativeness that constitutes fair use. And given the prevalence of mash-ups in today’s culture, one suspects that this opinion will be cited and expanded upon for many years.

Categories
Copyright Infringement Internet Uncategorized

Second Circuit Deepens Red Flag Knowledge Circuit Split in Vimeo

a gavel lying on a table in front of booksThe Second Circuit’s recent opinion in Capitol Records v. Vimeo is, to put it mildly, pretty bad. From its convoluted reasoning that copyrights under state law for pre-1972 sound recordings are limited by the DMCA safe harbors, despite the explicit statement in Section 301(c) that “rights or remedies” under state law “shall not be annulled or limited” by the Copyright Act, to its gutting of red flag knowledge by limiting it to the nearly-impossible situation where a service provider actually knows that a specific use of an entire copyrighted work is neither fair nor licensed yet somehow doesn’t also surmise that it’s infringing, it’s hard to see how either result is compelled by the statutes, much less how it was intended by Congress. On the latter point, the Second Circuit in essence has written red flag knowledge out of the statute, reducing the DMCA to a mere notice-and-takedown regime. The reality is that Congress expected red flag knowledge to do far more work, incentivizing service providers to take action in the face of a red flag—even without a notice.

If there’s any good to come from Vimeo, it might only be that the Second Circuit has now deepened the circuit split with the Ninth Circuit in Columbia Pictures v. Fung on two issues related to red flag knowledge. Under the statute, red flag knowledge exists when a service provider is “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.” The two circuits are already split on the issue of whether red flag knowledge must pertain to the particular works that are being sued over in the suit. And now with Vimeo, the circuits are split on the issue of whether a service provider can gain red flag knowledge just by looking at an infringing work. The deeper the circuit split, the greater the chance an appeal will make it to the Supreme Court, which would hopefully clean up the current red flag knowledge mess.

In Fung, the defendant, Gary Fung, operated several piracy havens, including isoHunt, TorrentBox, Podtropolis, and eDonkey. The district court found Fung liable for inducement under MGM v. Grokster and denied him safe harbor protection under the DMCA. The district court’s decision came in 2009, two years before the Ninth Circuit first held in UMG v. Shelter Capital that red flag knowledge requires “specific knowledge of particular infringing activity.” It also came two-and-a-half years before the Second Circuit held in Viacom v. YouTube that red flag knowledge is only relevant if it pertains to the works-in-suit. Regardless, since the vast majority of content available on Fung’s sites was copyrighted, including specific content that he himself had downloaded, the district court held that Fung hadn’t even raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he had red flag knowledge. The fact that none of the works he had been sued over were the same as the ones he had been found to have red flag knowledge of was irrelevant.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Fung had red flag knowledge as a matter of law. The opinion came out just one week after the same panel of judges issued a superseding opinion in UMG v. Shelter Capital reiterating that red flag knowledge requires “specific knowledge of particular infringing activity.” Importantly, in applying that standard to Fung, the Ninth Circuit did not say that the specific knowledge had to be of the particular works-in-suit. For whatever reason, Fung had failed to argue otherwise. Google even filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs but nonetheless arguing that “the DMCA’s knowledge standards are specific and focus on the particular material that the plaintiff is suing about.” Apparently unaware that this actually helped his case, Fung filed a supplemental brief calling Google’s argument “fallacious.”

In the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, even though red flag knowledge had to relate to particular infringing activity, that activity did not have to involve the particular works-in-suit. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit held that the “material in question was sufficiently current and well-known that it would have been objectively obvious to a reasonable person” that it was “both copyrighted and not licensed to random members of the public.” Since Fung failed to expeditiously remove the particular material of which he had red flag knowledge, he lost his safe harbor protection across the board. Thus, the Ninth Circuit in Fung held that: (1) red flag knowledge that strips a service provider of its entire safe harbor protection does not have to pertain to the particular works-in-suit, and (2) material can be so “current and well-known” that its infringing nature would be “objectively obvious to a reasonable person.”

The Second Circuit in Vimeo parted ways with the Ninth Circuit on these two holdings. Since the “evidence was not shown to relate to any of the videos at issue in this suit,” the Second Circuit held that it was “insufficient to justify a finding of red flag knowledge . . . as to those specific videos.” The Second Circuit thus applied the red flag knowledge standard on a work-by-work basis, in direct contrast to the Ninth Circuit in Fung. Also, the Second Circuit held that “the mere fact that a video contains all or substantially all of a piece of recognizable, or even famous, copyrighted music” and was “viewed in its entirety” by an “employee of a service provider” was not enough “to sustain the copyright owner’s burden of showing red flag knowledge.” The court added that even “an employee who was a copyright expert cannot be expected to know when use of a copyrighted song has been licensed.” So while the Ninth Circuit said it would have been objectively obvious to Fung that particular works were infringing, the Second Circuit in Vimeo set the bar far higher.

Curiously, the Second Circuit in Vimeo didn’t even mention Fung, despite the fact that it was deepening the circuit split with the Ninth Circuit. One wonders whether the omission was intentional. Either way, the circuit split has only gotten deeper. While in the Ninth Circuit an infringement can be so obvious that a court can find that a service provider had red flag knowledge without even sending it to a jury, the Second Circuit says that courts can’t let a jury decide whether a service provider had red flag knowledge even with the most obvious of infringements. And while in the Ninth Circuit a service provider loses its entire safe harbor for failing to remove an obvious infringement that it hasn’t been sued over, the Second Circuit says that red flag knowledge has to be determined on a work-by-work basis for only the works-in-suit. Given this growing divide between the Second and Ninth Circuits, it seems like only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in on the red flag knowledge standard. And if the Court does finally weigh in, one hopes it will put common sense back into the DMCA.

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory Internet Uncategorized

Ninth Circuit Gets Fair Use Wrong to the Detriment of Creators

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Lenz v. Universal is out, and it’s a doozy. The main issue in the case is whether a rightholder has to consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice. Section 512 requires the sender to state that she “has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Section 107 says that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” The question is whether fair use, which “is not an infringement” under Section 107, is therefore “authorized by . . . the law” under Section 512.

The court concludes that Section 512 “unambiguously contemplates fair use as a use authorized by the law.” This means that rightholders in the Ninth Circuit are now obligated to consider and reject fair use before sending a takedown notice. The court’s new spin on the DMCA places additional obstacles in the way of rightholders—particularly individual creators. The system is already confusing and onerous, and now it burdens people who are not lawyers with the duty to reach legal conclusions. The DMCA notice and takedown regime is a joke, often providing creators and rightholders less than a few minutes of relief before infringing works are reposted, and this opinion only makes the problem worse. But rather than rehash commentary you can read elsewhere, I want to highlight one startling error in the court’s reasoning.

In a bizarre section of the opinion, the Ninth Circuit declares that fair use is not an affirmative defense that excuses infringement: “Given that 17 U.S.C. § 107 expressly authorizes fair use, labeling it as an affirmative defense that excuses conduct is a misnomer[.]” In support, the court purports to quote a footnote from the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Bateman for the proposition that fair use is a right:

Although the traditional approach is to view “fair use” as an affirmative defense, . . . it is better viewed as a right granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any statutory basis, fair use was an infringement that was excused—this is presumably why it was treated as a defense. As a statutory doctrine, however, fair use is not an infringement. Thus, since the passage of the 1976 Act, fair use should no longer be considered an infringement to be excused; instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.

This is extremely misleading. The Ninth Circuit makes it sound like the Eleventh Circuit rejects the notion that fair use is an affirmative defense that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. The reality is that the Eleventh Circuit does no such thing. Here’s the full footnote from Bateman, with a paragraph break added:

Fair use traditionally has been treated as an affirmative defense to a charge of copyright infringement See Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, ––––, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1177, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (stating that “fair use is an affirmative defense”). In viewing fair use as an excused infringement, the court must, in addressing this mixed question of law and fact, determine whether the use made of the original components of a copyrighted work is “fair” under 17 U.S.C. § 107. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2230, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (citing Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1495 n. 8 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1867, 85 L.Ed.2d 161 (1985)).

Although the traditional approach is to view “fair use” as an affirmative defense, this writer, speaking only for himself, is of the opinion that it is better viewed as a right granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any statutory basis, fair use was an infringement that was excused—this is presumably why it was treated as a defense. As a statutory doctrine, however, fair use is not an infringement. Thus, since the passage of the 1976 Act, fair use should no longer be considered an infringement to be excused; instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.

The Ninth Circuit here cut out the first half of the footnote, where the Eleventh Circuit quotes binding Supreme Court precedent explicitly saying that “fair use is an affirmative defense” and then explains what must be done when analyzing such an “excused infringement.” Even worse, the Ninth Circuit uses an ellipsis to cut out the part in the second half of the footnote where Judge Birch, who authored Bateman, makes clear that he’s “speaking only for himself” when he says that fair use is not an “infringement to be excused.” The Ninth Circuit pretends to be adopting the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning, when in fact it’s rejecting it.

Judge Birch himself even reiterates the point five years later in his opinion for the Eleventh Circuit in the Suntrust case. In discussing the opinion of the court, he refers to the defendant’s “affirmative defense of fair use.” But then in the accompanying footnote, he likewise says that it’s only his personal opinion that fair use is a right. Here’s what he writes:

I believe that fair use should be considered an affirmative right under the 1976 Act, rather than merely an affirmative defense, as it is defined in the Act as a use that is not a violation of copyright. See Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1542 n. 22 (11th Cir.1996). However, fair use is commonly referred to as an affirmative defense, see Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1177, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), and, as we are bound by Supreme Court precedent, we will apply it as such.

Judge Birch fully understands that fair use is an affirmative defense and that binding Supreme Court precedent compels him to “apply it as such.” And twice he has followed that precedent when writing for the Eleventh Circuit. Yet, the Ninth Circuit here makes it sound like it’s agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit in holding that fair use is a right and not an affirmative defense.

The Eleventh Circuit has even explicitly said that Judge Birch’s view is not the law in that circuit. In an opinion from 2010, the Eleventh Circuit rejects an argument made by the defendant that “fair use is merely a denial of copyright infringement rather than an affirmative defense[.]” The defendant had cited Judge Birch for the proposition, but the Eleventh Circuit notes that “a close reading of Judge Birch’s comments reveal that he was expressing his personal views, not the views of this Court,” and it again holds that “the fair use of copyrighted work is an affirmative defense and should be pleaded as such.”

It’s simply disingenuous for the Ninth Circuit to claim that fair use is not an affirmative defense in the Eleventh Circuit. It is an affirmative defense there and in every other circuit because the Supreme Court has said it’s so. Judge Birch doesn’t get to overrule the Supreme Court, and neither does the Ninth Circuit. Yet, that’s what it purports to do here in Lenz v. Universal.