Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

Last updated

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
ArguedOctober 18, 2011
DecidedApril 5, 2012
Holding
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions shield an online platform from liability for the copyright infringement of users.
Court membership
Judges sitting José A. Cabranes, Debra Ann Livingston
Case opinions
Decision byJosé A. Cabranes
Keywords
Copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Safe Harbor

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir., 2012), 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. [1]

Contents

The entertainment company Viacom sued YouTube, the video-sharing site owned by Google, alleging that YouTube had engaged in "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission. [2] Google was brought into the litigation as YouTube's corporate owner. Google responded that the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act shielded the company from liability for the infringing behavior of its users. After an initial victory for YouTube at the district court level and then a reversal at the circuit court level, [3] the parties settled out of court in 2014. [4]

Background

In March 2007, [5] Viacom filed a US $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging that the site had engaged in "brazen" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view copyrighted material owned by Viacom. [6] The complaint stated that over 150,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's programming, including episodes of many popular television shows, had been made available on YouTube, and that these clips had collectively been viewed 1.5 billion times. [6]

Viacom claimed that YouTube had infringed on its copyrights by performing (via Internet transmission), displaying, and reproducing Viacom's copyrighted works. Furthermore, the complaint contended that the defendants "engage in, promote and induce" the infringement, and that they had deliberately built up a library of infringing works in order to increase the site's traffic and advertising revenue. [6] In total, Viacom claimed direct infringement and indirect infringement, specifically inducement, contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. [7]

Viacom did not seek damages for any actions after Google put its Content ID filtering system in place in early 2008, and instead pursued declaratory relief on the ability of American copyright law in addressing Internet-enabled infringement. [8] The lawsuit was later merged with similar complaints being pursued by other copyright holders. [9]

District court proceedings

The case was first heard at the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008. [2] During the pre-trial discovery phase, Viacom requested and received a court order for YouTube to hand over data detailing the viewing selections of every user who had ever watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the selections of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and usernames. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court order "a setback to privacy rights"; [10] and privacy advocates such as Simon Davies, who stated that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened. [11]

Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totaling about 12 terabytes of data. [12] On the other hand, Stanton rejected Viacom's request that YouTube hand over the source code of its search engine, saying that it was a trade secret. As a result of the data handover, many users began posting videos under the group name "Viacom Sucks!", often containing large amounts of profanity. [11] However, Google and Viacom agreed that Google could anonymize all the data before giving it to Viacom. [13] The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the English Premier League, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization, and the Scottish Premier League. [14]

Meanwhile, the deal exempted employees of both the defendants and the plaintiffs, whose de-anonymized data was provided separately. The employee data was later used in filings by both sides, because in some cases employees of the entertainment firms had uploaded their companies' content to YouTube voluntarily. Viacom cited internal e-mails sent among YouTube's founders discussing how to deal with clips uploaded to YouTube that were obviously the property of major media conglomerates. Google stated that Viacom itself had "hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site". [15] Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube" with Viacom's express authorization, "it was unreasonable to expect Google's employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission." [16] [17]

In 2010 Judge Stanton ruled that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), notwithstanding evidence of intentional uploads of copyrighted content by the entertainment companies themselves. [9] [18] Stanton held that while YouTube undeniably had general knowledge that some copyrighted material had been uploaded by users, it did not know which clips had been uploaded with permission and which had not. [8] He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively police every uploaded video "would contravene the structure and operation of the D.M.C.A." [8] Stanton also noted that YouTube had successfully enacted a mass take-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007, indicating that this was a viable process for addressing infringement claims. And finally, Stanton rejected Viacom's comparisons between YouTube and other Internet-based, media-sharing companies, such as Grokster, that had previously been found guilty of contributory copyright infringement. [8]

Circuit court ruling

Viacom appealed its loss to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, [9] and the circuit court's decision was issued in 2012. [19] During these proceedings, Viacom and the other plaintiffs focused on internal e-mails among YouTube employees who were aware of widespread infringement by the platform's users, including specific instances that the district court had said could be considered knowledge that would disqualify YouTube from safe harbor protection. [20] [21] [22]

Circuit court judges José A. Cabranes and Debra Ann Livingston reversed the district court's ruling, [23] holding that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website", [24] while the ability to control infringing activity need not require knowledge of specific infringements. [19] Thus, the case was again eligible for a jury trial at the district court level, in which YouTube would have to defend itself against the copyright infringement claims. [20] Furthermore, the circuit court found flaws in the district court's opinion on whether YouTube qualified for the safe harbor protections of the DMCA, with some definitional matters concerning the term "syndication" under the statute remaining unsettled. [19] Thus, the case was remanded to the district court for further fact-finding on these matters. [25]

Subsequent developments

A new hearing on the dispute was heard in 2013 at the District Court for the Southern District of New York, again with Judge Louis Stanton presiding. After additional discussion on the ability of YouTube to control infringing activity by its users and the applicability of safe harbor protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (as instructed by the circuit court), Stanton again ruled in favor of YouTube and Google. [3]

Stanton ruled that YouTube had no actual knowledge of any specific instance of infringement of Viacom's works, and therefore could not have "willfully blinded itself" to the infringement. He also ruled that YouTube did not have the "right and ability to control" infringing activity because "there is no evidence that YouTube induced its users to submit infringing videos, provided users with detailed instructions about what content to upload or edited their content, prescreened submissions for quality, steered users to infringing videos, or otherwise interacted with infringing users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their activity." [3]

Viacom initiated another appeal to the circuit court level, but they and Google announced in 2014 that they had reached an out-of-court settlement. No details on the nature of the settlement were revealed, except for the fact that no money changed hands. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Viacom (2005–2019)</span> American mass media company (2005–2019)

The second phase of Viacom Inc., was an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate with interests primarily in film and television. It was established on December 31, 2005, as one of two companies which succeeded the original Viacom, alongside the second CBS Corporation. The controlling shareholder of both companies was National Amusements, a theater company headed by businessman Sumner Redstone. The split was structured so that the original Viacom changed its name to CBS Corporation and spun out its cable and film interests as a new Viacom.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong–based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.

Louis Lee Stanton is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<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">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>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>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.

<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>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>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>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> 2013 US District Court case

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.

<i>Warner/Chappell Music Inc. v. Fullscreen Inc.</i>

Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472) was a case against multi-channel network Fullscreen, filed by the National Music Publishers Association on behalf of Warner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers, which alleged that Fullscreen illegally reaped the profits of unlicensed cover videos on YouTube without paying any royalties to the rightful publishers and songwriters.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

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 companies and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

Content ID is a digital fingerprinting system developed by Google which is used to easily identify and manage copyrighted content on YouTube. Videos uploaded to YouTube are compared against audio and video files registered with Content ID by content owners, looking for any matches. Content owners have the choice to have matching content blocked or to monetize it. The system began to be implemented around 2007. By 2016, it had cost $60 million to develop and led to around $2 billion in payments to copyright holders. By 2018, Google had invested at least $100 million into the system.

References

  1. ↑ Viacom Intern., Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F. 3d 19 (2nd Cir., 2012).
  2. 1 2 "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Viacom against Google". Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
  3. 1 2 3 "Granting Defendant YouTube's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Entering Judgement that Defendants are Protected by the Safe-Harbor Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) from all of Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement Claims". Docket Alarm, Inc. April 18, 2013. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
  4. ↑ "Docket Information for Viacom v. YouTube" . Retrieved May 9, 2013.
  5. ↑ "Viacom v. YouTube". Electronic Frontier Foundation. July 1, 2011. Retrieved April 7, 2024.
  6. 1 2 3 Text of complaint
  7. ↑ VerSteeg, Russ. Viacom v. YouTube: Preliminary Observations, North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 9, Issue 1, Fall 2007
  8. 1 2 3 4 Helft, Miguel (June 23, 2010). "Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit". The New York Times.
  9. 1 2 3 Lefkow, Chris (June 23, 2010). "US judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube". AFP. Archived from the original on June 26, 2010. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  10. ↑ "Judge orders Google to give YouTube user data to Viacom". Agence France-Presse. July 4, 2008. Archived from the original on July 2, 2010.
  11. 1 2 "Google must divulge YouTube Log". BBC News. July 3, 2008.
  12. ↑ Helft, Miguel (July 4, 2008). "Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube". The New York Times .
  13. ↑ Sweeney, Mark (July 15, 2008). "Google and Viacom reach deal over YouTube user data". The Guardian .
  14. ↑ Auchard, Eric (July 15, 2008). "Lawyers in YouTube lawsuit reach user privacy deal". Reuters.
  15. ↑ Zahavah Levine (March 18, 2010). "Broadcast Yourself". The Official YouTube Blog. Retrieved November 22, 2010.
  16. ↑ Levine, Zahavah (March 18, 2010). "Broadcast Yourself". YouTube Official Blog. Retrieved August 22, 2013.
  17. ↑ Helft, Miguel (March 18, 2010). "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyright". The New York Times.
  18. ↑ "Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment that Defendant YouTube Qualifies for Protection of 17 U. S. C. § 512 (c) Against all of Plaintiffs' Claims for Direct and Secondary Copyright Infringement". Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
  19. 1 2 3 "10-3270, 10-3342 Viacom Int'l, Inc., Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc" (PDF). April 5, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 16, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2011.
  20. 1 2 Goldman, Eric (April 5, 2012). "Second Circuit Ruling in Viacom v. YouTube Is a Bummer for Google and the UGC Community" . Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  21. ↑ "Opening Brief for Plaintiffs-Appelants" (PDF). December 3, 2010. Retrieved April 5, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  22. ↑ "Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants" (PDF). April 28, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 20, 2011. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  23. ↑ Greg Sandoval (April 5, 2012). "Viacom wins second round of copyright battle against YouTube". CNet.
  24. ↑ Brian Stelter (April 5, 2012). "Appeals Court Revives Viacom Suit Against YouTube". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012.
  25. ↑ David Glovin; Don Jeffrey (April 5, 2012). "Viacom's Copyright Suit Against Google's YouTube Reinstated". Bloomberg L.P.
  26. ↑ Stempel, Jonathan (March 18, 2014). "Google, Viacom settle landmark YouTube lawsuit". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 18, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2017.
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.