Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC

Last updated
Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case namePeter Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, Craig Carton, Ray Rossi
ArguedJanuary 25 2011
DecidedJune 14 2011
Citation(s) 650 F.3d 295
Holding
The defendants' copying of a magazine picture constituted copyright infringement, and the defendants' removal of the photographer's credit constituted a violation of the DMCA.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Julio M. Fuentes, Michael Chagares, Louis H. Pollak
Case opinions
Majority Julio M. Fuentes, joined by Michael Chagares, Louis H. Pollak

Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC is a 2011 U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals case concerning the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), copyright infringement, and defamation with regards to the online posting of a photocopy of a magazine photograph. After New Jersey radio station WKXW 101.5 copied onto its website a magazine picture of two of the station's talk show hosts, Craig Carton and Ray Rossi, the photographer of the picture, Peter Murphy, brought a suit against station owner Millennium Radio Group, as well as Carton and Rossi. The Third Circuit ruled that the station's actions did constitute both a violation of the DMCA and copyright infringement, which vacated the district court's judgment. [1]

Contents

This case marked the first time a circuit court weighed in on the scope of DMCA §1202, which prohibits the removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI). CMI is a collection of facts about the copyright on a work that is somehow attached to that work. The Third Circuit stated that the statute applied to all CMI, and was not limited to CMI in technological systems. [2]

Background

The March 2006 issue of New Jersey Monthly magazine included a "Best of New Jersey" article, which featured Craig Carton and Ray Rossi as the best shock jocks of the year. The article included a photograph of the two radio hosts, which had been taken by Peter Murphy, an independent contractor for the magazine. Carton and Rossi's radio station, WKXW 101.5, then copied that picture onto its website by scanning the magazine. The photographer's credit, which appeared as fine print in the magazine page's gutter, was cut off from the picture uploaded to the website. In addition, the station encouraged its listeners to submit "photoshopped" versions of the picture. The station also published these listener-modified copies of the picture on its website. [1] [3]

In June 2007, Murphy's attorney sent a notice of copyright infringement to WKXW, demanding that the station stop its infringing activities. WKXW complied with the request, removing the unaltered picture as well as all of the user-modified versions from its website. In response, Carton and Rossi complained on air about Murphy's conduct, allegedly saying that Murphy was "not to be trusted" and that people "should avoid doing business" with him. Carton and Rossi also alleged that Murphy "was a homosexual." [1] [3]

In April 2008, Murphy brought suit for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, and defamation of character against Millennium Radio Group, Carton, and Rossi. On March 31, 2010, New Jersey District Court ruled in favor of the radio station on all counts in a summary judgment without oral arguments. [3]

Opinion of the Court

On June 14, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, vacating the previous ruling on all counts.

Violation of the DMCA

Murphy claimed that WKXW's removal of his photographer's credit when copying the picture constituted a violation of the DMCA under 17 U.S.C. §1202(b), which states in part: [4]

No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law ... intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information ... knowing ... that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

Copyright management information (CMI) is defined in 17 U.S.C. §1202(c), quoted in part as follows: [4]

... the term "copyright management information" means any of the following information conveyed in connection with copies ... of a work, including in digital form ...
(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.

The district court relied on the decision from IQ Group v. Wiesner, which stated that due to the legislative history of the DMCA, CMI should be interpreted as "a component of an automated copyright protection or management system." [5] Using this analysis, the district court concluded that a print credit in a magazine is not CMI under the DMCA, and removing the credit is not a violation of §1202. [3]

The Third Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation, holding that the wording of §1202 did not limit its scope to copyright management information only as part of automated systems. As this was the first appellate court to address the scope of CMI in the DMCA, the Third Circuit relied primarily on a plain reading of §1202 to make its decision. The court also addressed the intention of §1202, and found that there was no obvious contradiction between the plain wording and the goal of the legislation. The Third Circuit therefore held that the actions of the radio station and talk show hosts did constitute removal of CMI under the DMCA. [1]

Murphy alleged direct infringement for the station's use of the unaltered picture, and contributory and vicarious infringement for the user-modified pictures. The defendants claimed that the station's actions qualified as fair use under the Copyright Act. [3]

The district court held that both the user-modified and the unaltered copies of Murphy's picture had transformative purposes from the original, with the former being parody and the latter being news reporting, both of which qualify as fair use. [6] The court also noted that Murphy suffered no adverse economic impact from WKXW's copying, bolstering the fair use defense. The district court therefore found the defendants' use of Murphy's picture to be fair use. [3]

Murphy did not appeal the district court's decision regarding the user-modified images; thus, the Third Circuit analyzed fair use for only the unaltered copy. The Third Circuit, disagreeing with the district court, ruled that WKXW's use of the copy of the photograph had the same purpose as the original: to illustrate Carton and Rossi winning the "best shock jocks" award. Furthermore, while Murphy did not suffer direct economic harm from WKXW's copying, the court noted that widespread manifestations of similar copying would be economically harmful to photographers in general. Consequently, the Third Circuit found that WKXW's use of the unaltered picture was not a fair use. [1]

Defamation

Regarding Murphy's claims of defamation, the district court, citing precedents, stated: [3]

In determining whether a statement is defamatory, a court 'must consider the content, verifiability, and context of the challenged statements' ... Verifiability refers to whether a statement can be proven true or false, and statements that are not verifiable, such as insults and name-calling, even if offensive, are not defamatory.

Using this analysis, the district court ruled that in the context of Carton and Rossi being shock jocks, their words were merely "rhetorical hyperbole, name-calling or verbal abuse" and did not constitute defamation. [3] The court further held that accusing someone of being a homosexual is not defamatory under any circumstance, since treating an inference of homosexuality as derogatory would "legitimize discrimination of gays and lesbians." [3]

On appeal, the Third Circuit decided that the district court had wrongly granted summary judgment before adequate evidence had been gathered. The radio station had destroyed the recording of the alleged defamatory statements, and Carton and Rossi had not yet been deposed with regards to the defamation claim before the district court issued its decision. The Third Circuit thus vacated and remanded the district court's decision so that Murphy could gather the evidence relevant to the defamation claim. [1]

Ramifications and Current Status

Prior to this decision, only district courts had addressed the scope of §1202, with their decisions differing amongst several interpretations. [7] The narrower interpretations read §1202 in the context of §1201 as well as the overarching purpose of the DMCA, both of which specifically address "technological measures" for copyright protection. [8] The narrower interpretations thus held that non-digital forms of CMI were already covered under the Copyright Act, and therefore were not within the scope of the DMCA. [9] Broader interpretations, upheld by the Third Circuit in this decision, held that §1202 applied to all CMI enumerated in §1202(c), including those unrelated to technology or digitization. Proponents of the broad interpretation argued that §1202 must have a scope beyond purely digital CMI, or the phrase "including in digital form" [4] in the statute would be redundant. [9]

A broad CMI interpretation would allow §1202 to overlap with traditional copyright law, and the defendants' lawyer in this case indicated that this decision "create[d] uncertainty as to ... what triggers liability." [10] The main concern over this overlap is that certain exemptions under the Copyright Act, such as fair use, would still be violations under the DMCA if CMI is removed. [9] A possible mitigating factor to this concern is that §1202 prohibits removal of CMI only when it is done to aid copyright infringement, meaning a §1202 claim should only succeed when actual or potential copyright infringement exists. [11]

As of April 2014, the status of this case remains active and unresolved. [12]

Related Research Articles

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

<i>Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.</i> American legal case concerning the DMCA

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.

WKXW News/talk radio station in Trenton, New Jersey

WKXW is a commercial FM radio station licensed to serve Trenton, New Jersey. It is owned by Townsquare Media. Its studios and offices are located in Ewing and its broadcast tower is located near the Quaker Bridge Mall in Lawrence Township in Mercer County, New Jersey at.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

FAIR USE Act

The "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing United States Entrepreneurship Act of 2007" was a proposed United States copyright law that would have amended Title 17 of the U.S. Code, including portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to "promote innovation, to encourage the introduction of new technology, to enhance library preservation efforts, and to protect the fair use rights of consumers, and for other purposes." The bill would prevent courts from holding companies financially liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their hardware or software, and proposes six permanent circumvention exemptions to the DMCA.

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 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) 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.

The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 U.S. law. It has two major portions, Section 102, which implements the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Section 103, which arguably provides additional protection against the circumvention of copy prevention systems and prohibits the removal of copyright management information.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Copyright law in the United States of America

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.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

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.

<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>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i>

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>

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the ruling in 2008 of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, holding that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before issuing a takedown notice for content posted on the Internet.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<i>321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.</i>

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, is a district court case brought by 321 Studios seeking declaratory judgment from the court that their DVD ripping software, i.e. DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy do not violate the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), or, in the alternative, that the DMCA is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its enumerated powers, these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and/or violate the First Amendment.

<i>Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc</i> American legal case

Arista Records, LLC v. LAUNCH Media, Inc., 578 F.3d 148, is a legal case brought by Arista Records, LLC, Bad Boy Records, BMG Music, and Zomba Recording LLC alleging that the webcasting service provided by LAUNCH Media, Inc. ("Launch") willfully infringed BMG's sound recording copyrights. The lawsuit concerns the scope of the statutory term “interactive service” codified in 17 U.S.C. § 114, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA"). If the webcasting service is an interactive service, Launch would be required to pay individual licensing fees to BMG's sound recording copyright holders; otherwise, Launch only need to pay “a statutory licensing fee set by the Copyright Royalty Board.”

<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>United States v. ASCAP</i> American legal case

United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) et al., No. 09-0539, 2010 WL 3749292, was a United States Court of Appeals case involving copyright liability for third-party vendors that provide online music download services. In particular, the Second Circuit ruled that music downloads do not constitute public performances, upholding the district court's decision and consequently preventing ASCAP from claiming higher royalty fees from Yahoo! and RealNetworks for downloaded music. However, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court's method of fee assessment and remanded the case for further proceedings. ASCAP appealed the decision and requested a writ of certiorari for judicial review in the Supreme Court.

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>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 No. 09-55902, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which UMG sued video-sharing website Veoh, alleging that Veoh committed copyright infringement by hosting user-uploaded videos copyrighted by UMG. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Veoh is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions. It was established that service providers are "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability so long as they diligently remove infringing material upon notice of infringement".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, 10-2163 (3rd Circuit2011).
  2. ↑ Eriq Gardner (June 15, 2011). "How Two Nude Radio DJs Could Impact Copyright Law". The Hollywood Reporter.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, 08-1743 (US District Court, D. New Jersey2010).
  4. 1 2 3 17 U.S.C.   § 1202
  5. ↑ IQ Group, Ltd. v. Wiesner Pub., LLC, 409F.Supp.2d587 (United States District Court, D. New Jersey2006).
  6. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 107
  7. ↑ "Photographer awarded $500,000 for removal of CMI". Copyright Infringement Advisor. Retrieved 23 January 2014.
  8. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1201
  9. 1 2 3 Susuk Lim (2011). "A Survey of the DMCA's Copyright Management Information Protections" (PDF). Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts. 6 (4): 297–309.
  10. ↑ Spoto, MaryAnn (16 June 2011). "N.J. court reinstates copyright suit against 'Jersey Guys' DJs". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 7 November 2011.
  11. ↑ Greg Lastowka (2007). "Digital Attribution: Copyright and the Right to Credit" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. 87 (41): 41–89. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-04. Retrieved 2011-10-18.
  12. ↑ Frangiosa, Christina (September 2011). "Removal of Photographer's "Gutter Credit" is Potentially Actionable Under DMCA". Privacy and IP Law Blog. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
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.