Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.

Last updated
Ouellette v. Viacom
MontanaDistrictCourt.gif
Court United States District Court for the District of Montana (Missoula)
Full case nameOuellette v. Viacom International Inc. et al
DecidedMarch 31, 2011
Docket nos. 9:10-cv-00133
Citation(s)2011 WL 1882780
Case history
Subsequent action(s) Donald W. Molloy's order adopting the magistrate judge's findings; 2011 WL 1883190
Holding
Service providers had no liability for taking down videos that may have been fair uses. The court also found no liability for online service providers who do not meet the needs of disabled persons.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJeremiah C. Lynch
Keywords
American Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)); DMCA; Safe harbor (17 U.S.C. § 512)

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 (works having a fair use defense to copyright infringement). 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. [1] The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown. [1]

Contents

The court's opinion was also noteworthy in its treatment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), holding that online service providers were not liable for failure to provide accommodations to persons with disabilities unless their service is "tightly integrated" with a physical space. [2] [3]

Facts

The case began when Plaintiff Todd Ouellette filed his complaint without an attorney (pro se). He claimed that YouTube and Myspace had wrongfully taken down his homemade videos. [4] Plaintiff asked for $9,999,000 in damages. [5] Defendants replied that the videos violated copyright. Plaintiff further alleged that the videos were fair use and that defendants' refusal to put them back up was in violation of the DMCA takedown provisions. Plaintiff alleged that removal of the videos did not comply with the DMCA's established procedure. 17 U.S.C.   § 512 of the DMCA grants safe harbor (immunity) to service providers that follow the DMCA's takedown procedure. [6]

The plaintiff sent counter notices to defendants that he alleged were complete except for minor errors due to his dyslexia. [4] He contended that the failure to restore the videos shows a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by depriving him of his "right to fair access to [Defendants'] 'public accommodation'" (arguing that the services constituted an "online theater"). [7] He also claimed that these websites did not comply with the ADA by having text and formatting impossible for him to read as a dyslexic person, particularly in the Terms of Service. He mentioned that there was no audio version to help him navigate either YouTube or Myspace. The Court waived the normal fees for filing the action because the plaintiff was unable to pay them (In Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C.   § 1915).

Judges give a plaintiff in a proceeding without a lawyer the benefit of the doubt, but the plaintiff must still have a valid underlying cause of action. [8]

DMCA

The court found fair use to be irrelevant to a determination of whether defendant violated the DMCA. According to 17 U.S.C.   § 107, fair use is only an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement. [9] It is not an affirmative right on which a cause of action may be premised. Thus, fair use does not protect the right to engage in any particular use of another's copyrighted material. [10]

The court found that the DMCA did not create liability for service providers. The court reviewed the legislative history of Congress' enactment of the DMCA and found that the goal of the legislation was "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA." [7] The statutory intent is to make it easier for service providers to know what opens the door to lawsuits against them for infringement. [11] Additional liability opposes this stated goal.

The safe harbor provision limits internet service providers' liability for copyright infringement. The court found it cannot increase liability. The safe harbor provision cannot be used as a premise for liability, because not meeting the safe harbor provision is not by itself sufficient for liability. [12] The only affirmative cause of action in 17 U.S.C.   § 512 is 512(f) which permits a claim for knowingly materially misrepresenting that a work is infringing. [2] However, the defendants never made any determination of whether plaintiffs' videos constituted fair use, let alone knowingly made representations to the plaintiff that it was infringing. Thus, there was no underlying cause of action for the plaintiff's claims.

ADA

42 U.S.C.   § 12182(a) of ADA provides that "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." [13] However, the ADA does not apply to private websites that do not constitute "places of public accommodation." The court found that Myspace and YouTube were not places of public accommodation. They were not actual, physical places, and they did not have an equivalent actual, physical place beyond the web "where the public gets those goods or services". [14] Thus, the court found the ADA rules did not apply to the defendants.

The plaintiff failed not just in establishing a connection between the defendants' internet services and a physical place, but failed to establish that the defendants had any physical location for making their services available at all. The court held that impeding access to an "online theater" is not an injury within the scope of the ADA. [15]

Even if the company does some business in person, its online site is not necessarily a place of public accommodation. Southwest Airlines' online site was earlier held not to constitute a place of public accommodation. [16] [17] However, if the site is "tightly integrated with a physical store" then ADA protection likely applies. [18] [19] Target's online shopping is still a place of public accommodation because it mirrors the functionality of their physical stores. [18] Thus, retail websites and other companies that have online presences that closely track the function of their physical stores will have to comply with the ADA. [19]

Finding no valid claims for relief remaining, the court dismissed the complaint.

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>National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i>

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation", apply to websites and/or the Internet, or are restricted to physical places.

<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.

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.

<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.

<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>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

<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.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

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.

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, was a decision of the United States District Court on 18 August 2002. It concerned the nature of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court determined that Southwest Airlines website is not a “place of public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case determined that the Southwest Airlines internet website was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerned with a physical existence and hence cannot govern what it is in cyberspace. Judge Seitz also explained that the “virtual ticket counter” Southwest Airlines Co’s website was a virtual construct and hence not a “public place of accommodation” and as such “To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards".

<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.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. District 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>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>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".

<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.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 Molloy, Donald (May 17, 2011), Ouellette v. Viacom
  2. 1 2 Goldman, Eric (May 20, 2011), "Another Ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act Doesn't Apply to Websites: Ouellette v. Viacom", Technology & Marketing Law Blog
  3. ↑ Goldman, Eric (May 19, 2011), "Facebook User Loses Lawsuit Over Account Termination: Young v. Facebook", Technology & Marketing Law Blog
  4. 1 2 Ouellette, Todd (November 30, 2010), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages
  5. ↑ Docket, November 30, 2010
  6. ↑ Takedown procedure
  7. 1 2 Lynch, Jeremiah C. (March 31, 2010), Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
  8. ↑ Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
  9. ↑ Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
  10. ↑ Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219–220 (2003)
  11. ↑ Scott, Mike (April 5, 2005), "Safe Harbors Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (PDF), Legislation and Public Policy
  12. ↑ Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F.Supp.2d 514, 520 (S.D.N.Y.2010)
  13. ↑ Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations
  14. ↑ Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000)
  15. ↑ Estevez, Anne Marie (November 1, 2011), "§ 5:2. Public accommodations—Place of public accommodation", Compliance and Litigation Manual
  16. ↑ McCullagh, Declan (October 21, 2002), "Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web", CNET News
  17. ↑ "District Court Holds ADA Does Not Apply to Web Site", TechLawJournal, October 18, 2002
  18. 1 2 Bashaw, Jeffrey (February 25, 2008), "Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to Private Websites after National Federation of the Blind v. Target" (PDF), Shidler Journal of Law, Communication & Technology
  19. 1 2 Ramasastry, Anita (October 3, 2006), Does the Americans with Disabilities Act Require that Commercial Websites Be Accessible to the Blind? A Recent Court Ruling Suggests the Answer Is Yes, But Only for Certain Sites
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.