Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

Last updated
Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 17, 2013 (2013-07-17)
Citation(s)Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722F.3d591 (2013).
Case history
Appealed fromThe United States District Court for the District of Maryland Southern Division
Court membership
Judges sittingTRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges
Case opinions
Decision byJudge DUNCAN in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Gregory joined
Keywords
cyberlaw·copyright law·Clickwrap

Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722F.3d591 (2013)., was a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case in which a court held two issues:

Contents

  1. The copyright owner of a collective work, such as an automated database, was not required by a pre-suit copyright registration requirement to identify names of creators and titles of individual work.
  2. By clicking yes to the term of use and uploading photograph, is sufficient to writing component in assignment of right under 17 U.S.C.   § 204 [1]

Background

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems Inc. ("MRIS") operates an online multiple listing service which provides property listings and related information to its subscribers, real estate broker and agent. In order to upload their real estate to MRIS database, subscribers have to click "yes" to MRIS Terms of Use Agreement ("TOU") that assigns copyright in each photographs to MRIS. [1]

MRIS registers the database every quarter with the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to the rules for an automated database. As the basis for each quarterly application, MRIS typically describes the material as "daily updated and revised text and images and new text and images," but does not name or describe individual photos. [2]

American Home Realty Network ("AHRN") operates NeighborCity.com, a national real estate search engine and referral business. The site gets its information, among others, by scraping information from the MRIS Database. [1]

After failure to make a licensing agreement, MRIS field suit against AHRN and its CEO for copyright infringement and sought for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in the use of MRIS's photographs. AHRN appealed based on two reasons:

  1. MRIS failed to register its copyright in the individual photographs;
  2. By clicking "yes" to TOU, subscribers did not transfer their copyright in the photographs to MRIS. [1]

Opinion of Court

For the first issue, AHRN asserted that MRIS failed to identify names of creators and titles of individual works as required by 17 U.S.C.   §§ 409(2) – (6) Therefore, MRIS did not register its interest in the individual photographs. The court stated that 17 U.S.C.   § 408 allows a groups registration of related works, such as automated database. As articulated in Craigslist v. 3Taps, the court recognized collective work registration as sufficient if the registrant owns the rights to the component work, because "it would be ... [absurd and] inefficient to require the registrant to list each author for an extremely large number of component works to which the registrant has acquired an exclusive license." In addition, it would add impediments to automated database authors' attempts to register their own component works and would conflict with the general purpose of Section 409, which is encouraging prompt registration. Thus thwarting the specific goal embodied in Section 408 of easing the burden on group registrations. Here, MRIS owned each photographs transferred by the subscriber. Therefore, MRIS satisfied the pre-suit registration requirement. [1] [3]

On the Clickwrap agreement

The court moved to the other issue, whether clicking "yes" to MRIS's TOU operated as an assignment of copyright in the photographs under 17 U.S.C.   § 204.

A transfer of one or more of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership by assignment or exclusive license is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent [4]

The court noted that 17 U.S.C.   § 204 was intended to solve a dispute between owners and transferees, not for the benefit of a third party infringer. E-SIGN Act defines an electronic signature means that: "...an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." [5] A click on the website could be regarded as signature under the E-SIGN Act. Citing E-SIGN Act, the court stated that this Act can be applied to a copyright case because none of the exception under this Act applies to this case.15 U.S.C.   § 7001(b) provides that it "does not ... limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed by a statute, regulation, or rule of law ... other than a requirement that contracts or other records be written, signed, or in nonelectric form." Since 17 U.S.C.   § 204(a) requires transfers be "written" and "signed,"15 U.S.C.   § 7001(b) intended to limit, alter, or otherwise affect of 17 U.S.C.   § 204(a). Therefore, the court held that the electronic agreement can satisfy a transfer of right under 17 U.S.C.   § 204. Affirmed the District Court's decision. [1]

Subsequent developments

From the decision in this case, by clicking "yes" to the Clickwrap Agreement, a user could agree to transfer his copyright to the websites, other than his intent to agree with the term of use. This could establish some new considerations for practitioners dealing with copyright matters. [6] As more transactions become entirely electronic in nature, it is likely that more courts will join the Fourth Circuit in holding that clicks and taps can constitute signed writings in general business as well as specifically in the copyright context. [7]

The court concluded that subscribers who click "yes" to the Terms of Use Agreement indicate assent via E-sign.However, the court gave no comment on whether such assent would constitute a valid agreement in this appeal to preliminary injunction; therefore, the validity MRIS's copyright transfer might need to further be solved in its merit claims. [8] [9] Whether the accepting in a Clickwrap Agreement should be interpreted that the user consented to transfer his own right is still a controversial issue. In a practical way, it might have to consider if the user is forced to click yes to the Clickwrap Agreement. If so, it might be clearer if the website would use both the clicking to the Term of Use and the signing to assent to transfer the user's right to the website. It should be interesting to see how other courts would decide this same issue. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

An end-user license agreement or EULA is a legal contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user, generally made available to the customer via a retailer acting as an intermediary. A EULA specifies in detail the rights and restrictions which apply to the use of the software.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is an American trade association for those who work in the real estate industry. It has over 1.4 million members, making it one of the biggest trade associations in the USA including NAR's institutes, societies, and councils, involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries. The organization holds a U.S. trademark over the term "realtor", limiting the use of the term to its members. NAR also functions as a self-regulatory organization for real estate brokerage. The organization is headquartered in Chicago.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d),(passed as part of Pub. L. 106–113 ) is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart "cybersquatters" who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party. Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech, while others dispute these complaints. Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants. The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses. The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act. Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".

A clickwrap or clickthrough agreement is a prompt that offers individuals the opportunity to accept or decline a digitally-mediated policy. Privacy policies, terms of service and other user policies, as well as copyright policies commonly employ the clickwrap prompt. Clickwraps are common in signup processes for social media services like Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr, connections to wireless networks operated in corporate spaces, as part of the installation processes of many software packages, and in other circumstances where agreement is sought using digital media. The name "clickwrap" is derived from the use of "shrink wrap contracts" commonly used in boxed software purchases, which "contain a notice that by tearing open the shrinkwrap, the user assents to the software terms enclosed within".

<i>ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg</i>

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is a significant precedent on the matter of the applicability of American contract law to new types of shrinkwrap licenses that arose with home computing and the Internet in the 1990s, and whether such licenses are enforceable contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concurrent use registration</span> Federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties

A concurrent use registration, in United States trademark law, is a federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties, with each party having a registration limited to a distinct geographic area. Such a registration is achieved by filing a concurrent use application and then prevailing in a concurrent use proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), which is a judicial body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A concurrent use application may be filed with respect to a trademark which is already registered or otherwise in use by another party, but may be allowed to go forward based on the assertion that the existing use can co-exist with the new registration without causing consumer confusion.

<i>Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.</i> American legal case

Specht v. Netscape, 306 F.3d 17, is a ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the enforceability of clickwrap software licenses under contract law. The court held that merely clicking on a download button does not show assent to license terms, if those terms were not conspicuous and if it was not explicit to the consumer that clicking meant agreeing to the license.

Rudder v. Microsoft Corp. [1999] OJ No 3778. is an Ontario Superior Court case that is the leading decision on clickwrap licenses and forum selection clauses in Canada.

Network DVR (NDVR), or network personal video recorder (NPVR), or remote storage digital video recorder (RS-DVR) is a network-based digital video recorder (DVR) stored at the provider's central location rather than at the consumer's private home. Traditionally, media content was stored in a subscriber's set-top box hard drive, but with NDVR the service provider owns a large number of servers, on which the subscribers' media content is stored. The term RS-DVR is used by Cablevision for their version of this technology.

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. provides a multiple listing service in the United States. As of mid-July 2010, it served 51,171 real estate professionals in Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area including Maryland, Washington DC, Northern Virginia, and parts of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<i>CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.</i>

CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision about whether LoopNet should be held directly liable for CoStar Group’s copyrighted photographs posted by LoopNet’s subscribers on LoopNet’s website. The majority of the court ruled that since LoopNet was an Internet service provider ("ISP") that automatically and passively stored material at the direction of users, LoopNet did not copy the material in violation of the Copyright Act. The majority of the court also held that the screening process by a LoopNet employee before the images were stored and displayed did not alter the passivity of LoopNet. Justice Gregory dissented, stating that LoopNet had engaged in active, volitional conduct because of its screening process.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

NeighborCity was a residential real estate information and service company that rated real-estate agents in the United States, offering a way for buyers and sellers of homes to compare and evaluate agents. It was based in San Francisco.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective work (US)</span>

A collective work in the copyright law of the United States is a work that contains the works of several authors assembled and published into a collective whole. The owner of the work has the property rights in the collective work, but the authors of the individual works may retain rights in their contributions. Electronic reproduction of the whole work is allowed, but electronic reproduction of the individual works on their own, outside the context of the work as a whole, may constitute an infringement of copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc. 722 F.3d 591".
  2. ↑ Zuber, Tom. "Metropolitan Regional Information Systems v. American Home Realty Network: Fourth Circuit Rules Web Site Owner Can Enforce Copyright on User-Uploaded Photos". LawUpdates.com. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  3. ↑ McGowan, Jake (27 July 2013). "Multiple Listing Service Gets Favorable Appellate Ruling in Scraping Lawsuit". Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 2014-02-10.
  4. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 204(a)
  5. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 7006(5)
  6. ↑ Jozefczyk, Dana. "What You Should Know About Electronic Copyright Transfers". Law360. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  7. ↑ Pulman, Simon. "Fourth Circuit Holds That Clicks May Transfer Copyright: Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc., v. American Home Realty Network, Inc". Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP. Retrieved 2014-03-20.
  8. ↑ McGowan, Jake (27 July 2013). "Multiple Listing Service Gets Favorable Appellate Ruling in Scraping Lawsuit". Technology and Marketing Law Blog. Retrieved 2014-02-24.
  9. ↑ Chestek, Pamela. "Update: "What is an 'E-Signature'?"". Property, intangible. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
  10. ↑ Hartline, Devlin. "Fourth Circuit: Clickwrap Agreement Fulfills Writing Requirement for Copyright Transfer". Law Theories. Retrieved March 1, 2014.


Text of Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d 591 is available from:  google scholar    United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  Text of Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc. case brief is available from:  IP Law Chat    National Association of Realtors  Text of Craigslist Inc., v. 3Taps Inc.,942 F.Supp.2d 962 is available from:  google scholar  

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.