Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.

Last updated
Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC vs. Ozimals, Inc.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedDecember 21, 2010
Docket nos. 3:10-cv-05696
Citation(s)Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. [1]
Case history
Subsequent action(s)litigation terminated July 2013
Holding
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order GRANTED in favor of Amaretto
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Charles Breyer
Keywords
DMCA takedown, preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

Contents

Background

Second Life is an online website where users can live out their virtual lives. Users can make and sell their own virtual items. Ozimals is a company that creates virtual bunnies which can be purchased and raised in Second Life through feeding them virtual food. Amaretto Ranch Breedables sells virtual horses which can also be purchased and raised in a similar fashion.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits content owners to prevent infringement by seeking a court order that requires an internet service provider to block or remove access to content that allegedly infringes copyrighted content. [2] In this case, Ozimals claimed that Amaretto Ranch Breedables’ horses infringed on their bunnies and filed a takedown notice for their horses and feed. [3] Amaretto sued for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring Linden Research, the operator of Second Life, from removing their products. [2]

Case

As established in Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council (2008), a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must show:

  1. Likelihood to Succeed on the Merits
  2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
  3. Balance of Hardships Weighs in Favor of Plaintiffs
  4. Public Interest Supports the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction

Since software copyright protection does not apply to functionality as in this case, the case was considered likely to succeed. [3] Amaretto did not directly copy Ozimal's source code, and the idea of a growing virtual animal that could be fed and raised is not copyrightable. [3]

Likely irreparable harm is interesting in this case. Had the DMCA order gone through, it would have cut off Amaretto's source of income before it could challenge Ozimal's copyright claim. [3] Their virtual horses would have died for lack of food, and though Ozimals stated that they would agree to Amaretto distributing their product for free, Amaretto understandably refused to do so. [4] Furthermore, even if they were to litigate, had the takedown occurred, Amaretto would have lost a significant number of potential customers by missing out on the prime buying season. [1] Judge Charles Breyer ruled that irreparable harm was likely in this case. [1] For the same reason, he deemed that the balance of hardships would be in favor of the plaintiff. [1]

Finally, there was no identifiable public interest in this case. [1] Judge Breyer granted Amaretto the temporary restraining order against Linden Research from removing their horses until the preliminary injunction ruling. [1]

Subsequent Motions to Dismiss

Motion to dismiss First Amended Complaint

In April 2011, Ozimals was granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss Amaretto's First Amended Complaint (FAC). [5]

They argued that

  1. Section 512(f) Misrepresentation was not viable because no takedown had occurred. The judge agreed with Ozimals here, referring to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., which stated that the damages incurred had to be from the DMCA removal of content.
  2. Litigation privilege does not bar the tortious interference and unfair competition claims. The judge ruled in favor of Amaretto in this case, as the original DMCA notification was not a judicial proceeding.
  3. Tortious interference claim wasn't plausibly pleaded. The judge sided with Ozimals here, ruling that merely arguing that the defendants falsely disparaged their products on online forums was not enough to determine interference with contract.
  4. The unfair business practices claim should be dismissed. Here, the judge ruled that Amaretto's unfair business practices claim was viable here, as Ozimals didn't have a valid copyright.

Ozimals’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. [5] In response, Amaretto filed a Second Amended Complaint. [6]

Motion to dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Ozimals also moved to dismiss Amaretto's Second Amended Complaint in July, which consisted of the following:

  1. declaratory relief;
  2. statutory and common law unfair competition;
  3. copyright misuse;
  4. defamation;
  5. trade libel;
  6. intentional interference with contract; and
  7. tortious interference with prospective business advantage. [6]

Ozimals moved to dismiss 2 and 6. Judge Breyer ruled against them on unfair competition, pointing out that it had already been decided in the previous case. However, he did dismiss the common law unfair competition claim, since that entails passing off one's goods as those of another. [6] State law claims based on DMCA takedowns are preempted here by the federal nature of the DMCA, as referenced in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. as well as OPG v. Diebold . Ozimal's motion to dismiss on this count is granted. [6]

Further developments

Litigation continued into 2012, with several changes of attorney. [7] Meanwhile, Second Life has backed away from the dispute, stating, "We no longer have a horse in that race or a bunny in that pot.". [4] The court dismissed Ozimals copyright infringement claim because "Ozimals lacked standing to sue on the copyright in issue", and also dismissed Amaretto's requests for declaration that Ozimals' actions were copyright misuse and that its horses were not infringements, on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In July 2013 the final legal claims, relating to Amaretto's allegations that an Ozimals blog posting had defamed Amaretto, were also dismissed, ending the court proceedings.

Significance


Legal blogger Eric Goldman’s take on the case was, “I generally like furry critters, but I'm beginning to hate the virtual horses and virtual bunnies for their deleterious effect on Internet law.” [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.

<i>Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.</i>

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, was a lawsuit involving an archive of Diebold's internal company e-mails and Diebold's contested copyright claims over them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic provided pro bono legal support for the non-profit ISP and the Swarthmore College students, respectively.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenberg & Lieberman</span>

Greenberg & Lieberman is a national and international law firm based in Washington, D.C. Established in 1996 by Michael Greenberg and Stevan Lieberman, the firm is known for its expertise in the technology-law areas of intellectual property, trademark infringements, domain names, virtual worlds, and software and was listed among 16 influential entities in the field of domain names in 2010. A "boutique law firm", Greenberg & Lieberman credited for being among the first in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life. Greenberg & Lieberman are also noted for their involvement with media law and military law.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i> U.S. District Court copyright case

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC</i>

Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00348, was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued Summit Entertainment. Smith asserted seven causes of action for Summit Entertainment's wrongful use of copyright takedown notice on the website YouTube, among which three were dismissed and four were ruled in Smith's favor. The case is noteworthy given that copyright 17 U.S.C. § 512 claims are hard to win, and the plaintiff's success was due to the combination of his persuasive story and convincing additional claims which complemented § 512.

Michael Greenberg is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Stevan Lieberman, established in 1996. As part of the firm, Greenberg has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes and is a well-regarded and experienced litigator, with particular expertise in patent infringement cases.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

Stevan H. Lieberman is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Michael Greenberg, established in 1996. As part of the firm, Lieberman has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes, and he is considered a pioneer in the technology-law areas of virtual worlds, domain names and software, cited by CNN as "among the virtual world's earning elite." Among the first lawyers in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life; he is the co-founder and CEO of two virtual reality websites.

YouTube copyright issues relate to how the Google-owned site implements its protection methods. The systems are designed to protect the exclusivity of a given creator and owner and the rights to reproduce their work. YouTube uses automated measures such as copyright strikes, Content ID and Copyright Verification Program. These methods have been criticized for favoring corporations and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">YouTube copyright strike</span> Website policy action

YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. A copyright strike will expire after 90 days. However, if a YouTube user accumulates three copyright strikes within those 90 days, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, including any associated channels that the user have, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696, 29(N.D. Cal.Dec. 21, 2010).
  2. 1 2 "Plaintiff obtains restraining order stopping Second City from taking down its virtual animals pursuant to takedown notice". The Computer & Internet Lawyer. 28 (3): 25. March 2011.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Kwong, Justin (2012). "UPDATE: Virtual Horse Case, Amaretto Ranch v. Ozimals".
  4. 1 2 Scheck, Justin (2011). "You Can Lead a Virtual Horse to Water, But You Might Get Sued Along the Way". The Wall Street Journal.
  5. 1 2 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696 , 80(N.D. Cal.Apr. 22, 2011).
  6. 1 2 3 4 Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., No.3:10-cv-05696 , 104(N.D. Cal.July 8, 2010).
  7. ↑ Justia.com (2011). "Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc".
  8. ↑ Goldman, Eric (2011). "Second Life Gets Out of Dispute Between Virtual Bunnies & Virtual Horses". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 17 October 2012.
  9. 1 2 Goldman, Eric (2011). "17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices--Amaretto v. Ozimals". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 17 October 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.