Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.
Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.
Court	United States District Court for the Central District of California
Full case name	Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.
Decided	October 13, 2015
Defendant	Jukin Media, Inc.
Plaintiff(s)	Equals Three, LLC
Citation(s)	139 F. Supp. 3d 1094
Holding
	Summary judgment motion granted in part and denied in part.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Stephen V. Wilson
Keywords
	Copyright infringement, Fair use

Last updated November 12, 2023

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015) was a copyright infringement lawsuit where the court evaluated if commenting on humorous videos in a transformative manner is fair use or exploiting videos for their humor without paying for their use.^[1]

Background

Jukin Media, Inc. is a digital media company that aggregates a library of user-generated online video clips and licenses them on behalf of their creators. It employs a team of 11 people to browse the internet looking for videos that go viral, and enters a licensing agreement with their creators. The company amassed a collection of 17,000 short-form videos, which they upload to YouTube and their content-focused websites, and monetizes them through advertisements, sponsorships, subscription, and promotions and licenses deals with television, cable, and YouTube shows.

Equals Three produces short 3–5 minute humor programs that are broadcast on YouTube. This involves a host giving an introduction, showing parts of video clips, and making remarks about the events and persons in the clips, followed by further commentary directed at the people, events, and circumstances depicted in the video. Equals Three obtains footage by scouring the internet for source videos.

Equals Three used portions of Jukin Media's clips without paying a licensing fee.

On March 12, 2014, Equals Three's then-host Ray William Johnson announced that the show would be going on hiatus to find a new host. Prior to resuming broadcast, Jukin Media contacted Equals Three and informed them that any use of Jukin Media's videos would be considered infringement and Jukin Media was willing to negotiate a license agreement, indicating that Equals Three's crediting Jukin and linking to their content was insufficient. On July 16, 2014, Equals Three resumed broadcast and published a video using Jukin's content. On June 25, 2014 Jukin Media sent Equals Three a letter with an invoice which Equals Three did not pay. Jukin Media argued that Equals Three never responded to the letter, never paid the invoice, nor attempted to negotiate a license.

On May 1, 2014, Equals Three alleged that Jukin has filed at least 41 copyright infringement claims against them on YouTube, preventing them from earn advertising revenue from the affected episodes. Equals Three's inability to advertise allowed Jukin to place advertisements on the episodes, redirecting viewers to Jukin’s own YouTube channel.

On November 21, 2014, plaintiff and counterclaim Equals Three sued defendant and counterclaimant Jukin Media, Inc. for a declaratory judgment and relief under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which prohibits false DMCA take-down notices. Jukin Media claimed that Equals Three infringed on 19 of its copyrights and filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding fair use. Jukin Media argued that Equals Three directly targeted its videos, but didn't offer any evidence other than speculation.

Jukin only submitted copyright registration certificates for two of the subject videos and it presented to the court no licensing agreements granting it rights to the subject videos. Equals Three provided the copyright registration numbers for 18 of the 19 subject videos.

Opinion

In determining if a work is fair use the court considers the following factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Equals Three argues that "the episodes are transformative because they are parodies of the Jukin videos," while Jukin argues that they are not parodies "because they do not critique Jukin's videos." The court said the episodes comment upon or criticize Jukin's videos by highlighting their ridiculousness by creating fictionalized narratives of how the events transpired, using similes, or by directly mocking the depicted events and people within the videos. Equals Three's use of Jukin's videos is admittedly commercial, but the commercial nature of the use is outweighed by the transformativeness. The court found that the video use in the episode Sheep to Balls, where a person buys an phone and drops it, was not transformative and is not fair use. Other than Sheep to Balls, the court did not find any evidence that Equals Three did not in good faith believe that it was making fair use of Jukins' videos and the Equals Three videos to be highly transformative, weighing in favor of fair use.

For the nature of the copyrighted work, the court found Jukin's work to be creative. Jukin's videos were all published before Equals Three used them. The court finds this factor not particularly important where the new work is highly transformative.

For the substantiality Jukin argues Equals Three uses the most important parts of the videos and Equals Three argues that it uses no more of Jukin's videos than is necessary to achieve its purpose of criticizing and commenting. The court side with Equals Three where they used no more than necessary to allow the host's jokes, comments, and criticisms, favoring fair use.

For the potential market Jukin alleges that Equals Three frequently copies its videos during the time when they are most valuable. Equals Three argues that there is no way for a viewer to share a source video contained in an Equals Three episode without having the viewer watch the entire episode. The court finds that the transformative nature of the video makes cognizable market harm less likely no actual evidence of any such harm.

The court granted Jukin's motion for summary judgment to the extent that Jukin asserts that the video "Sheep to Balls" is not a fair use and entered a partial judgement. But for all other videos the Court denies Jukin's motion for summary judgment.

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries that were part of the British Empire in the 20th century, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 is a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the anti-trafficking provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), in the context of two competing universal garage door opener companies. It discusses the statutory structure and legislative history of the DMCA to help clarify the intent of the anti-circumvention provisions and decide who holds the burden of proof. It expresses that the statute creates a cause of action for liability and does not create a property right, and holds that as Chamberlain had alleged that Skylink was in violation of the anti-trafficking provision, it had the burden to prove and failed to show that access was unauthorized and its rights were infringed under the Copyright Act. As Chamberlain incorrectly argued that Skylink had the burden of proof and failed to prove their claim, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of Skylink.

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.

Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132, was a U.S. copyright infringement case involving the popular American sitcom Seinfeld. Some U.S. copyright law courses use the case to illustrate modern application of the fair use doctrine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's summary judgment that the defendant had committed copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for classifying Seinfeld trivia not as unprotected facts, but as protectable expression. The court also rejected the defendant's fair use defense finding that any transformative purpose posse, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 is a case where Google Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

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.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

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.

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

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>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.

Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, is a 2006 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding fair use of images in a pictorial history text. It affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held at trial that the publisher's use of several images of past Grateful Dead concert posters and tickets, reduced considerably, in a timeline of the band's history was a sufficiently transformative use.

<i>Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc.</i>

Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc. was a district court case in which the Associated Press (AP) brought suit against Meltwater Group in U.S. (Meltwater) for clipping and sharing news items under copyright infringement and "hot news" misappropriation under New York common law. In a cross-motion for summary judgement, Meltwater argued they were not infringing under the requirements of fair use. Meltwater claimed that their service was transformative and therefore non-infringing on copyright. The court held that Meltwater's copying was not protected under the fair use doctrine and it was infringing on AP's copyright.

<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.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v Vimeo, LLC</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp. 2d 500, 972 F. Supp. 2d 537, was a 2013 copyright infringement case out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The decision resolved cross-motions for summary judgment filed by a video-sharing service (Vimeo) and a pair of record labels. Vimeo sought a ruling that, as a matter of law, it was entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as to a series of copyrighted videos that were uploaded to its platform; the record labels sought the opposite ruling.

Jukin Media, Inc. is an entertainment company that operates by identifying shareable or otherwise compelling user-generated videos, negotiating with the video owners, and then licensing the videos for third-party use and/or featuring the videos in its own productions. The company was founded in 2009 by Jonathan Skogmo, Aldo Carrascoso and Josh Entman and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

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 will be 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.

Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc. 688 F.3d 1164 is a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if the publication of previously unpublished photographs in a celebrity gossip magazine constitutes fair use. Latin American celebrities singer Noelia Lorenzo and music producer Jorge Reynoso claimed that Maya Publishing Group, LLC and Maya Magazines, Inc. infringed their copyrights by publishing previously unpublished photos of their secret wedding in their celebrity gossip magazine "TVNotas".

References

↑ "Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094". Casetext Search + Citator. October 13, 2015. Retrieved November 9, 2021.

External links

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc. Judgement Order

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.

[Casetext_Search_+_Citator_2015-1] "Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094". Casetext Search + Citator. October 13, 2015. Retrieved November 9, 2021.

[1]