Wolk v Photobucket

8/7/2019 Wolk v Photobucket

1/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------ ------ ---------xSHEILA WOLK,

Pl a i n t i f f , 10 Civ. 4135 (RWS)aga ins t - OPINION

KODAK IMAGING NETWORK, INC., EASTMANKODAK COMPANY, and PHOTOBUCKET.COM,INC. ,

Defendants .

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Pro SeSHEILA WOLK 7 West 8 St ree t Apartment 2D New York, NY 10024

Defendant Photobucket.com Inc.NORWICK & SCHAD

59 th11 0 East St ree t 29 th FloorNew York, NY 10022By : Kenneth P. Norwick t Esq.SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169

Mark Alan Lerner , Esq.

At

Case 1:10-cv-04135-RWS Document 33 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 25
http:///reader/full/PHOTOBUCKET.COMhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/PHOTOBUCKET.COMhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.com


2/25

Attorneys fo r Defendants Kodak ImagingNetwork, Inc. and Eastman Kodak CompanyNIXON PEABODY LLP437 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10022By: Mark D. Robins, Esq.100 Summer St ree tBoston, MA 02110By: Gina M. McCreadie, Esq.One Embarcadero CenterSui te 1800San Francisco , CA 94111By: Tal ley M. Henry, Esq.

2



3/25

Sweet, D.J.

P l a i n t i f f Shei la Wolk ("Wolk" o r "P l a i n t i f f " ) has

moved fo r a pre l iminary i n junc t ion preven t ing DefendantPhotobucket .com, Inc . ("Photobucket" o r "Defendant") fromi n f r ing ing on her copyr igh t s . This motion was cons idered fu l lysubmit ted on November 3, 2010. For the fo l lowing reasons,P l a i n t i f f ' s motion i s denied.

I . Summary o f Facts

P l a i n t i f f i s a v isua l a r t i s t . Photobucket i s ani n t e rne t se rv ice prov ider ("ISPII) which hos ts user-genera tedphotos fo r s to rage and shar ing . Users have uploaded upwards of8 b i l l i on photos to Photobucket . P l a i n t i f f c la ims t h a t cop iesof her copyr igh t images have been uploaded to Photobucketwithout her permiss ion . In response, P l a i n t i f f has providednot ices reques t ing t h a t some of these images be taken down fromPhotobucket . Severa l these not i ce s have complied with theDig i ta l Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Where P l a i n t i f f hassubmit ted a DMCA-compliant not i ce photobucket has t aken downlthe a l l eged ly in f r ing ing photo . photobucket so has taken downphotos where P l a i n t i f f has s u f f i c i e n t ly i de n t i f i e d the a l leged

Iin f r ingements even i f the not i ce was not DMCA-compliant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ " ! I ! : , ____

http:///reader/full/Photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.com


4/25

Despi te the removal of these leged ly in f r ing ing photos ,P l a i n t i f f contends t ha t more in f r ing ing photos remain onPhotobucket ' s s i t e , though she has not provided DMCA-compliantnot i ce s of these a l leged ly in f r ing ing works to Photobucket .

I I . Legal Standards

In o rd e r to obta in a pre l iminary in junc t ion , a movantmust sa t i s fy a t h ree -par t t e s t , inc lud ing :

1) i r r ep a r ab l e harm absen t in junc t ive r e l i e f ; 2)e i the r a l i ke l ihood of success on t he mer i t s , o r ase r ious ques t ion going to the mer i t s to make them af a i r ground fo r t r i a l , with a balance o f hardsh ipst ipping decidedly in the p l a i n t i f f ' s favor; and 3)t h a t th e pub l i c ' s i n t e r e s t weighs in favor o f grant ingan i n junc t ion .

Metro Taxicab Bd. o f Trade v. of New York, 615 F.3d152, 15 6 (2d Cir . 2010) , c i t i ngDep ' t o f Educ., 519 F. 3d 505, 508 (2d Cir . 2008) (percuriam) i Winter v. Natura l Res. Def. Counci l , Inc . , 555U.S. 7 (2008) ( in te rna l quota t ions omitted) .

P l a i n t i f f s are not en t i t l ed to a presumpt ioni r r eparab le harm i f they demonstra te a l ike l ihood o f success onth e meri t s . Sa l inger v. Colt ing l 607 F.3d 68, 80 82 (2 d r .2010) . Rather , "p l a i n t i f f s must show t ha t , on th e f ac t s o f

2



5/25

t he i r case, the f a i l u re to i ssue an in junc t ion would ac tu a l l ycause i r r eparab le harm." Id . a t 82.

III . P l a i n t i f f Does Not Demonstrate a Likel ihood o f Success onthe Merits

Through th e DMCA, Congress has provided a se r i e s"safe harbors" fo r ISPs, including fo r displaying works re s id ingon systems o r networks a t the d i rec t ion of use rs . See El l i sonv. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076-77 (9 th Cir . 2004). Where anISP meets sa fe harbor e l i g ib i l i t y requ i rements , it i s pro tec t edfrom a l l monetary and most equ i t ab le r e l i e f . See Corbis Corp.v. Amazon. com, I n c . , 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1098 99 (W.D. Wash.2004) , abrogated on othe r grounds by Cosmetic Ideas , Inc. v.IAC/ In te rac t ivecorp . , 606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir . 2010).

In o rd e r fo r Photobucket to f a l l with in the DMCA'ssa fe harbor pro tec t ion , it must meet the fo l lowing c r i t e r i a : (1)it must be a se rv ice prov ider as def ined by th e s t a tu t e ; (2) itmust have adopted and reasonab ly implemented a pol fo r th ete rmina t ion in appropr ia te circumstances of use rs who are repea ti n f r i n g e r s ; and, (3) it must accommodate and no t i n t e r f e r e withstandard t e chn ica l measures used by copyright owners to i den t io r p r o t ec t copyr igh ted works. See Id . a t 1099; 10 Group, Inc ._v_.__ ____ . , 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1142-43 (N.D. Cal.V_e_o_h Ne _ t _ w _ o _ r _ k _ s ~ _____

3



6/25

2008) i Per fec t 10, Inc . v . Google, Inc . , 2010 U.S. Dis t . LEXIS75071, *11 (C.D. Cal . Ju l . 26, 2010); 17 U.S.C. 512(i ) &(k ) (1) (B) .

The DMCA sa fe harbor prov i s ion a t i s sue here i s founda t 17 U.S.C. 512(c) , and pro tec t s se rv ice prov ide rs fo rl i a b i l i t y " ' f o r in f r ingement o f copyright by reason o f th es to rage a t th e d i rec t ion of a u se r o f mate r i a l t h a t r es ides on a

system o r network con t ro l led o r operated by or fo r the se rv iceprov ider . " ' Io Group, 586 F. Supp. 2d a t 1146, quot ing 17U.S.C. 512 (c) (1) .

a. Photobucket i s a Service Provider under the DMCA

A "service prov ider" i s broad ly def ined under th e DMCAas a "provider o f onl ine se rv ice s o r network access , or th eopera tor o f f a c i l i t i e s t h e r e f o r.... /I 17 U. S . C. 512 (k) (1) (B) ."This d e f i n i t i o n encompasses a broad var i e ty of I n t e r n e ta c t i v i t i e s . " Corbis , 35 1 F.Supp.2d a t 1100; see also In reAimster Copyright Li t i g a t i o n , 252 F. Supp. 2d 634, 658 (N.D.Ill. 2002) ( " ' se rv ice prov ide r ' i s def ined so broadly t h a t [ thecour t would] have t roub le imagining th e ex i s t ence of an onl ineservice t ha t would no t f a l l under th e d e f in i t i on ... / I ) . Wherecour t s have d ea l t with se rv ice s s imi l a r t o Photobucket , namely

4

http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d


7/25

Youtube.com, they have found those companies to be "se rv i ceprov iders" under th e s t a t u t e . See Viacom I n t e r n a tYoutube, I n c . , 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)Photobucket ' s host ing and al lowance of onl ine shar ing of photosand video a t the d i s c r e t i o n of its use rs q u a l i f i e s it as ase rvice prov ider under th e DMCA.

b . Photobucket Has Adopted and Reasonably Implemented aPol icy for the Termination o f Users Who Are RepeatInfringers

The DMCA requ i re s a sa fe harbor se rv ice prov ider todemonst ra te t h a t it has :

adopted and reasonably implemented, and informssubsc r ibe rs and account holders of th e se rv icep r o v id e r ' s system o r network o f , a pol i cy t h a tprov ides or the t e rmina t ion in appropr ia tecircumstances of subsc r ibe rs and account holders ofth e se rvice prov ider ' s system o r network who a rerep ea t i n f r i n g e r s .

17 U.S.C. 512 ( i) (1 ) (A) i see Per fec t 10, Inc . v. CCBil l LLC,488 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir . 2007) .

Photobucket has met t h i s c r i t e r i a by adopt ing ,informing use rs o f , and implementing a pol i cy address ing th ete rmina t ion of use rs who repea ted ly in f r inge copyr igh t s . (Dana.Aff . ~ 22.)

5

http:///reader/full/Youtube.comhttp:///reader/full/Youtube.com


8/25

c . Photobucket Does Not Interfere with Standard TechnicalMeasures

"Standard t e chn ica l measures" are def ined as" t ech n i ca l measures t ha t a re used by copyr igh t owners toi den t i fy o r p r o t ec t copyr igh ted works ll and which: (a) "have beendeveloped pursuant to a broad consensus of copyr igh t owners andse rvice prov iders in an open, f a i r , volun tary , mul t i - indus t rys tandards p rocess" ; (b) "are ava i l ab le to any person onreasonab le and nondiscr iminato ry te rms" ; and (c) "do not imposesubs tan t ia l cos t s on se rv ice prov iders o r s u b s t an t i a l burdens ont h e i r systems o r networks ." 10 Group, 586 F. Supp. 2d a t 1143,quot ing 17 U.S.C. 512( i ) (2) (A)- (C) .

Photobucket contends, and P l a i n t i f f does no t di spu te ,t h a t it accommodates and does no t i n t e r f e re with s tandardtechn i measures t aken by copyr igh t holders t o p r o t ec t t h e i ri n t e l l e c tua l proper ty . (Dana Aff . ~ 23.)

d. The Infringement Alleged Here Invokes DMCA Sect ion512(c) Safe Harbor Protect ion

As noted above, 17 U.S.C. 512(c) p r o t ec t s q u a l i f i edse rvice prov iders from l i a b i l i t y fo r in f r ingement which occurs"by reason th e s to rage a t th e d i rec t ion of a use r t h a tre s ides on a system o r network con t ro l l ed o r opera ted by o r fo r

6



9/25

the se rvice provider ." 17 U.S.C. 512(c) (1) . This sa fe harborwas not in tended by Congress to be l imi ted " to merely s to r ingmater ia l , " but was meant to encompass a broader range o fse rv ice s offered by i n t e rne t companies. 10 Group, 58 6 F. Supp.2d a t 1147. However, the sa fe harbor does not apply to"mater ia l t ha t r es ides on the system or network opera ted by o rfo r the se rvice provider through i t s own ac t s o r dec is ions andnot a t the d i sc re t ion of a user . " Id . ( in t e rna l c i t a t i ons and

quota t ions omit ted) . The pro tec t ions o f fe red by 512(c) extendto where the se rv ice provider o f fe r s onl ine t oo l s pe rmi t t i ngusers to i n t e r a c t with user -submi t t ed content . See Id . a t 1146 47; Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 527 28 ("Surely th e prov i s ion ofsuch se rv ice , access , and opera t ion of f a c i l i t s a re within th esa fe harbor when they flow from the m a te r i a l ' s placement on th eprov ider ' s system o r network: it i s inconceivable t h a t they arel e f t exposed to be claimed as unprotected inf r ingements") .

e . Photobucket Meets A ll o f the Requirements forProtect ion under Sect ion 512(c)

A serv ice prov ider may qua l i fy fo r pro tec t ion under 512(c) i f i t :

(A) (i) does not have ac tua l knowledge t h a t th emate r i a l o r an ac t i v i t y us ing the mate r i a l on th esystem o r network i s in f r ing ing ;

7



10/25

( i i ) in the absence of such ac tua l knowledge, i snot aware o f f ac t s or c i rcumstances from whichin f r ing ing ac t i v i t y i s apparen t ;( i i i ) upon obta in ing such knowledge o r awareness,ac t s exped i t ious ly to remove, or d i sab le accessto , the mate r i a l .

(B) does not rece ive a f inanc ia l benef i t d i r e c t lya t t r i bu t a b l e to the in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y , in acase in which the se rv ice prov ide r has th e r i g h tand a b i l i t y to con t ro l such a c t i v i t y ; and

(C) upon no t i f i c a t i on o f claimed in f r ingement asdescr ibed in paragraph (3) , respondsexped i t ious ly to remove, o r di sab le access to ,th e mater ia l t ha t i s claimed to be in f r ing ing o rto be th e subjec t o f in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y .

17 U.S .C . 512 (c) (1) (A ) - (C) .

In o rd e r fo r ISP to be charged with not i ce of aclaimed in f r ingement , the not i ce "must be a wri t t encommunicat ion provided to the designated agen t o f a se rv iceprov ider t h a t inc ludes su b s t a n t i a l l y th e fo l lowing" :

(A) (i) A p h y s i ca l o r e l ec t r o n i c s igna tu re o f a personau thor ized to ac t on behal f o f th e owner o f anexc lus ive r igh t tha t i s a l leged ly in f r inged .( i i ) Id e n t i f i c a t i o n of th e copyr igh ted work claimed tohave been i n f r inged , o r , i f mult ip le copyrighted worksa t a s ing le onl ine s i t e are covered by a s ing len o t i f i c a t i o n , a r ep resen ta t ive list of such works a tt ha t s i t e .( i i i ) Id e n t i f i c a t i o n the mater ia l t h a t i s cla imedto be in f r ing ing o r to be th e sub jec t o f in f r ing inga c t iv i t y and t h a t i s to be removed o r access to whichi s to be disabled , and in fo rmat ion reasonablysu f f i c i e n t to permi t the se rv ice prov ide r to loca tethe mater ia l .

8



11/25

(iv) In format ion reasonab ly s u f f i c i e n t to permi t these rvice provider to con tac t the complaining par ty ,such as an address , te lephone number, and, i fava i lab le , an e lec t ron ic mail address a t which th ecomplaining par ty may be con tac ted .(v) A s ta tement t ha t the complaining par ty has a goodfa i th bel f t ha t use of the mat a l in the mannercomplained of i s not au thor ized by th e copyrightowner, i t s agen t , o r the law.(vi) A s ta tement t h a t the informat ion in theno t i f i c a t i on i s accura te , and under pena l ty ofpe r ju ry , t ha t the complaining par ty i s author ized toac t on beha l f of th e owner of an exc lus ive r igh t tha ti s a l leged ly i n f r inged .(B) (i) Subjec t to c lause ( i i ) , a no t i f i c a t i on from acopyr igh t owner o r from a person author ized to a c t onbehal f of the copyr igh t owner t h a t f a i l s to complysubs tant ly with the provis ions of subparagraph (A)sh a l l not be considered under paragraph (1) (A) indetermining whether a se rv ice provider has ac tua lknowledge o r i s aware of f ac t s o r c i rcumstances fromwhich in f r ing ing ac t i v i t y i s apparen t .( i i ) In a case in which the no t i f i c a t i on t h a t i sprovided to th e se rv ice prov ider ' s des igna ted agentf a i l s to comply su b s t a n t i a l l y with I th e prov i s ionso f subparagraph (A) but su b s t a n t i a l l y complies withc lauses ( i i ) , ( i i i ) , and (iv) of subparagraph (A),c lause (i) o f t h i s subparagraph app l i e s only i f these rv ice provider promptly at tempts to contac t th eperson making th e no t i f i c a t i on o r t akes o th e rreasonab le s t eps to a s s i s t in the rece ip t ofno t i f i c a t i on t ha t subs tan t i a l ly complies with a l l th eprovis ions of subparagraph (A).

17 U.S .C . 512 (c) (3) (A ) (B) .

The ISP must also des igna te an agent to recen o t i f i c a t i o n s of claimed in f r ingement on i t s webs i te a

9



12/25

publ i c ly access ib l e loca t ion and with the Copyright O ff i ce . 17U.S.C. 512 (c) (2) .

1. Pla in t i f f ' s Non-Specif ic Notices o f InfringementWere Insuf f i c i ent to Give Photobucket Actual orApparent Knowledge o f Infringement

Photobucket has taken down a l l a l leged ly in f r ing ingphotos where P l a i n t i f f has supp l ied DMCA-compliant no t ice .P la in t i f f ' s motion r e l i e s upon h er content ion t h a t he r pas tno t i ce s a l so serve as DMCA-compliant not i ce o f o th e r presen t andfu tu re a l leged in f r ingements of th e same copyrighted workspos ted a t d i f f e r e n t t imes and a t d i f f e re n t loca t ions . Inessence, P l a i n t i f f contends t h a t Photobucket i s now aware t ha th er copyrights are being i n f r inged on i t s s i t e , and it must nowpol i ce i t s s igh t to uncover cur ren t in f r ingements and preven tfu tu re in f r ingements , without h e r providing DMCA-compliantnot ice in each i n s t ance .

P la in t i f f ' s p o s i t i o n places a burden on Photobucketbeyond what i s requ i red under th e DMCA. Pursuant to 512(c) (3) (A), DMCA-compliant not i ce must i den t i fy and reasonab lyloca te th e in f r ing ing ac t i v i t y in each i n s t ance . As th e Cour theld in Viacom, "[a ]n example o f such s u f f i c i e n t informat ionwould be a copy o r descr ip t ion th e a l leged ly in f r ing ing

10



13/25

mater ia l and th e so ca l l ed 'un i form resource loca tor l (URL)( i . e ' l web s i t e address) which a l leged ly conta ins the in f r ing ingmate r ia l . " 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 529 ( r e jec t ing p l a i n t i f f / scompla int where the ISP removed only spec i f i c in f r ing ingmat e r i a l des igna ted in DMCA-compliant not i ce s and not o t h e rc l i p s which i n f r inged the same works) I quot ing House Committeeon Commerce Repor t I H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (Par t 2) , 105th Cong' l2d Sess ' l a t 55 (July 221 1998). P l a i n t i f f c i t e s Viacom inurging the Court to adopt a \\common-sense l fac t -based approach Inot a fo rmal i s t i c one" in assess ing Defendant I s no t ice . (Pl .Mem. a t 41 quot ing Viacom l 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 521.) However, asshown above I Viacom ind ica tes t ha t such an approach would stillrequi re P l a i n t i f f to provide th e spec i f i c loca t ion of the

leged ly in f r ing ing works in each ins tance for not ice to beef fec t ive . See Viacom l 71 8 F. Supp. 2d a t 523 1 529.

The requi rement t h a t DMCA-compliant no t ices i den t i fyand loca te spec i f i c ac t s of in f r ingement undermines P l a i n t i f f / spos i t ion , as her pas t not i ce s do not i den t i fy and loca te othe r ,and fu tu re I in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y . The Cour t does not accep t h e ri nv i t a t ion to s h i f t the burden from h er to Photobucket l as theunderly ing purpose o f th e not i ce requirements i s to \ \place theburden o f po l ic ing copyright in f r ingement - i nden t i fy ing thep o t e n t i a l l y in f r ing ing mater i and adequately documenting

11

"1''' , , \ '1&______ _



14/25

i n f r ingement - square ly on owners of the copyr igh t . I! UMG________ ~ ~ _ I _ n _ c __. __v_.__V_e_o_h____________I_n_c_.1 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099 11110 (C.D. Cal . 2009) 1 quot i CCBil l l 488 F.3d a t 1113. TheCourt CCBil l s imi l a r l y "dec l ine[d] to s h i f t [ the] s u b s t an t i a lburden pol i c ing fo r inf r ingement] from the copyr igh t ownerto th e provider .1! CCBil l l 488 F.3d a t 1113. Fur thermore 171U.S.C. 512(m) (1) r e j e c t s any a t tempt to fo rce ISPs to pol i cet h e i r s i t e s fo r copyr igh t in f r ingement :

Nothing in t h i s sec t ion 1 be cons t rued tocond i t ion th e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of subsec t ions (a) through(d) on- (1) a se rv i ce p ro v i d e r moni tor ing its se rv ice o ra f f i rm a t i v e l y seeking f ac t s i nd ica t ing in f r ing inga c t 1 excep t to th e ex ten t c o n s i s t e n t with as tandard t e chn ica l measure complying with th eprov i s of subsec t ion ( i) ....

See a lso Viacom l 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 524 ("The DMCA i s e x p l i c i t :lit s h a l l not cons t rued to cond i t ion ' s a f e harbor p ro t e c t i o n

on a se rv i ce p ro v i d e r moni tor ing its se rv ice o r af f i rmat ive lyseeking f ac t s i nd ica t ing in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y .... II ) ( i n t e r n a lquota t ions and t a t i o n s omit ted) .

A s imi l a r argument was re j e UMG. There 1 th ep l a i n t i f f , a s holder o f var ious music r eco rd in g s 1 providednot ice o f s p ec i f i c in f r ingements and i nd ica t ed t h a t it b e lother l n o n - sp ec i f i i n f r ingement was t ak ing place . 665 F.

12



15/25

Supp. 2d a t 1109-10. The p l a i n t i f f argued t h a t th e ISP "shouldhave sought out ac tua l knowledge of othe r in f r ing ing videos bysearch ing i t s system fo r a l l videos by the a r t i s t s i n d en t i f i edin th e (p l a i n t i f f ' s ] no t ices . " Id . a t 1110. The cour t r e j ec t edt h i s argument , holding t h a t an " a r t i s t ' s name i s not' i n fo rmat ion reasonab ly su f f i c i e n t to permi t th e se rv iceprov ider to l oca te [ in f r ing ing] mate r i a l ' " and not ing t h a tsearches sugges ted by th e p l a i n t i f f produced " fa l se pos i t ive s"which should not be taken down. rd . a t 1110 & n. 13 ( in te rna lquota t ions and c i t a t i ons omit ted) .

Without rece iv ing not i ce s iden t i fy ing and l oca t ingeach ins tance of in f r ingement , Photobucket did not have "ac tua lknowledge" of the complained of in f r ingements o r "aware [ness] off ac t s o r circumstances from which i n f r ing ing ac t i v i t y i sapparent ." 17 U.S.C. 512 (c) (1) (A) ( i i ) . See UMG, 665 F. Supp.2d a t 1110 ( "no t i ces t h a t il to comply su b s t a n t i a l l y with 512 (c) (3) (A) ' s h a l l not be cons idered ... in determining whether ase rvice prov ider has ac tua l knowledge o r i s aware of f ac t s o rcircumstances from which in f r ing ing ac t i v i t y i s ap p a r en t ' " ) ,quot ing 17 U.S.C. 512 (c ) (3 ) (B) ; , 165F. Supp. 2d 1082 (C.D. Cal . 2001) ("The DMCA ex p ress l y prov idest ha t if the copyr igh t h o ld e r ' s a t tempted no t i f i c a t i on f a i l s to'comply su b s t a n t i a l l y ' with the e lements o f no t i f i c a t i on

13



16/25

descr ibed in subsec t ion (c) (3) , tha t no t i ca t ion sh a l l not becons idered when eva lua t ing whether the se rv ice prov ider hadac tua l o r cons t ruc t ive knowledge of the in f r ing ing ac t i v i t yunder th e f i r s t prong s e t fo r th in Sect ion 512(c) (1 )") , quot ing17 U.S.C. 512 (c) (3) (B ) ( i) i Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 524("The t en o r of th e foregoing p ro v i s i o n s i s t h a t th e phrases' a c tu a l knowledge t h a t th e mater ia l or an a c t iv i t y l i sinf r inging! and ' f ac t s o r circumstances! ind ica t ing in f r ing inga c t iv i t y , descr ibe knowledge of spec i f i c and i d e n t i f i a b l ein f r ingements of pa r t i c u l a r i nd iv idua l i t ems . Mere knowledge ofprevalence o f such a c t iv i t y in genera l i s no t enough. ") . Wolkhas fa i l ed t o po in t to o t h e r f ac to r s s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i sht h a t Photobucket knew o r should have known o f the spec i f i ci n f r ing ing a c t i v i t y .

Final lYI as noted above! it i s undispu ted t h a tphotobucket has promptly taken down a l l eged ly in f r ing ingmate r i a l s when n o t i f i e d in compliance with the DMCA, sa t i s fy i n gthe t h i rd and f i n a l f ac to r of 512(c) (1 ) (A), as wel l as 512 (c) (1 ) (C) .

2 . Photobucket Does Not Have the Right and Abi l i tyto Control Infringing Act iv i ty and Does NotReceive Direct Financial Benef i t from AllegedInfringing Act iv i ty

14



17/25

Turning to 512(c) (1) (B), Photobucket may "notrece ive a f inanc ia l benef i t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to th ei n f r ing ing a c t iv i t y , in a case in which [ i t ] has th e r i g h t andab i l i t y to con t ro l such a c t iv i t y . " 17 U.S.C. 512 (c ) (1 ) (B).

Photobucket al lows u se r s to upload and share photosdoes not main ta in th e r i g h t o r l i t y t o con t ro l what i s

pos ted , including mate r i a l s which copyr igh t s . "[T]her i g h t and a b i l i t y to con t ro l in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y , 'a s theconcept i s used in th e DMCA, cannot simply mean the a b i l i t y of a

prov ider to block o r remove access to mate r i a l s postedon i t s websi te o r s tored on i t s sys tem. " ' s , 351 F. Supp.2d a t 1110, quot ing CCBill , 488 F.3d a t 1098. See a l soHendrickson, 165 F. Supp. 2d a t 1093; 10 , 586 F. Supp. 2da t 1151. Rather , such a r i g h t and a b i l i t y to con t ro l may t aketh e prescreen ing con ten t , p rov id ing ex tens advice tou se r s regard ing con ten t , and ed i t i n g use r co n t en t . See Corbis ,351 F. Supp. 2d a t 1110, c i t i ng Per fec t 10, Inc . v . CybernetVentures I n c . , 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1181-82 (C.D. Cal . 2002) .Photobucket s not engage in such a c t i v i t i e s , and th e zei t s websi te cur t l s its a b i l i t y to do so . (Dana Af f . , 3 .) In10 Group, the Cour t found t h a t , where hundreds o f thousandsvideos had been oaded to a s i t e s imi l a r to Photobucket , noreasonab le j u r o r could conclude t h a t a comprehensive review of

15



18/25

----

every f i l e would be 586 F. Supp. 2d a t 1153.P l a i n t i f f has no t pointed to any f eas ib le method by whichPhotobucket can prescreen i t s content . 1

Furthermore, Photobucket does not rece ive "a f ibenef i t d i r e c t ly a t t r i bu t a b l e to the in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y "P l a i n t i f f seeks to enjo in . 1 7 U. S . C. 512 (c ) (1 ) (B). As theNinth Circu i t has held , where i s no evidence t h a t " [ the

ce provider] a t t rac ted o r r e t subscr ip t ions becauseinfr ingement o r l o s t subscr ip t ions because of [ i t s ] eventual

obs t ruct ion of the infr ingement ," no reasonable jury couldconclude t h a t the serv ice provider rece ived a d i r e c t f inanc ia l

f i t from provid ing access to in f r ing ing m ate r ia l.I I , 48 8 F.3d a t 1117, c i t i ng l i son , 357 F.3d a t 1079.

a i n t i f f contends t ha t Photobucket rece ives f inanc ia lgain through i t s re l a t ionsh ip with Kodak, under which itrece a share of sa les derived from Photobucket .com.However, s f inanc ia l gain i s der ived al lowing a l l usersaccess to Kodak's se rv ices , no t d i r e c t ly s pe c i f i c a l l y fromal lowing users to p r i n t in f r ing ing mate1 Pl a i n t i f f proposes tha t Photobucket uses video IIf ing" technologyto search i t s websi te fo r inf r inging mater ia l . However, Pla in t i f f concedest ha t such i s very burdensome to implement and notes Photobucket ' scontent ion t h a t it would not be f eas ib le to use such (Pl . ReplyMem. a t 2, c i Dana Aff. ~ 50.)

16

http:///reader/full/Photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.com


19/25

3. Photobucket Has Properly Designated an Agent toReceive Noti f icat ions o f Claimed Infringements

f i na l requirement for safe harbor under 512(c) (2) i s fo r Photobucket to des ignate an agen t fo r DMCAno t i f i ca t i ons , to pos t such agent ' s con tac t in format ion on i t swebsi te in a pub l ic ly access ib le loca t ion , and to prov ide theCopyright Off with t h i s in format ion . I t i s undispu ted t ha t

Photobucket has complied with t h i s requirement . (See Dana f .~ 16 . )

f . The Limited Injunctive Rel ie f Avai lable under Sect ion512(j) Does Not Provide For Pla in t i f f ' s RequestedRel ie f

Because Photobucket qua l i f i e s fo r 512(c ) ' s sa feharbor , the r e l i e f ava i l ab le to Pla in t i f f i s c i rcumscr ibed tot ha t provided by 512( j ) . Only th ree forms of in junc t iver e l i e f are ava i l ab le aga ins t Photobucket:

( i) An order re s t ra in ing the serv ice prov ider fromprov id ing access to in f r ing ing mater ia l o r ac t iv i t yres id ing a t a pa r t i cu la r onl ine s e on the prov i de r ' ssystem o r network.( i i ) An order re s t ra in ing the serv ice prov ider fromprovid ing access to a subscr iber or account holder ofthe se rv i ce provide r ' s system o r network who i sengaging in f r ing ing a c t i v i t y and i s i den t i f i ed inthe order , by t e rminat ing the accounts of thesubsc r ibe r o r account holder t ha t are spec i f i ed theorder .

17



20/25

( i i i ) Such othe r in junc t ive r e l i e f as the cour t mayconsider necessary to preven t o r r e s t r a i n in f r ingementof copyr igh ted mate r i a l spec i f i ed in the orde r o f thecour t a t a p a r t i a r onl ine loca t ion l i f such r e l ii s th e l e a s t burdensome to th e se rv ice p ro v i d e r amongthe forms of r e l i e f comparably e f f e c t fo r t h a tpurpose.

17 U.S.C. 512( j ) (1 ) (A) P l a i n t i f f appears to seek r e l iunder ( i ) and ( i i i ) .

An unct ion under (i) I which preven t s Photobucketfrom "provid ing access to in f r ing ing mate r i a l re s id ing a t apa r t i c u l a r onl s i t e on the provider1s system o r network,"e s s e n t i a l l y requ i re s Photobucket to block access to in f r ing ingmater ia l when given proper no t ice . 17 U.S.C. 512(j) (1) (A) (i) isee Nimmer on , 12B.11 (2010) , c i t i ng Repor t of th eCommittee on th e Jud ic i a ry , H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (Par t 2) I105th Cong., 2d Sess . , a t 62 (Ju ly 22, 1998). I t i s undisputedPhotobucket i s ready removing a l leged ly in f r ing ing works whengiven DMCA-compliant not ice so t h a t t he re i s no need fo r ani n junc t ion requ i r ing it to do the same.

The t h i rd form of unct ion under 512 ( j) (1) (A) i s abroader c a t c h -a l l prov i s ion , but it requ i re s t h a t the i n junc t ionpo in t to "a pa r t i c u l a r onl ine loca t ion H and t h a t th e r e l be

" l e a s t burdensome to the se rv ice p rov ide r H among o t h e r

18



21/25

f ec t ive forms of r e l i e f . P l a in t i f f ' s argument i s t h a t sheneed not provide spec i f i c onl ine loca t ions inf r ingements ofher copyr ights . Rather, Photobucket i s to fo r in f r ing ingac t ty i t s e l f , a t a sk which both pa r t i e s acknowledge to beburdensome. The in junc t ive r e l i e f Pla in t i f f does notcomport to 512 ( j ) (1 ) (A) ( i i i ) .

IV. Pla int i f f Fai l s to Sat i s fy the Other Criter ia for a Preliminary Injunct ion

Apart from being unable to e s t a b l i s h a I ihood ofsuccess on th e meri t s , a i n t i f f does not demonstra te

harm, t ha t th e balance of hardsh ips f a l l s her, o r t ha t publ ic pol icy supports h er sough t -a f t e r i e f .

a . Pla in t i f f Fai l s to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm

Pla in t i f f r e l i e s on a ion of i r reparab le harmfo r copyr ight p l a i n t i f f s , c i t i ng Johnson Cont ro l s , Inc. v.Phoenix Contro l Inc . , 886 F.2d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir . 1989)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - -However, s presumption has been abrogated. Sal inger , 607F.3d a t 75. This cour t has found th e lowing:

I r reparable harm i s the "s ingle most importantpre requ i s i t e" fo r a pre l iminary unc t ion to i s sue .~ ~ ~ ~ L - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 559 F.3dCir . (c i ta t ion omit ted) . The

must demonstrate t ha t , without a pre l iminary19



22/25

in junct ion , he wi l l suf an in jury t ha t i s "ne i the rremote nor specula t ive[ but ac tua l and imminent, andone t ha t cannot be remedied i f a cour t wai t s un t i l theend of tri to resolve the harm. II Id . (c i ta t ionomit ted) . IIWhere there i s an adequate remedy a t law[such as an award of money damages, in junc t ions areunava i lable except in extraordinary c i rcumstances . "Id . (c i ta t ion omit ted) . Thus [ th e " re levant harm i sthe harm t ha t (a ) occurs to the p a r t i e s ' l ega li n t e re s t s and (b) cannot remedied a f t e r a f i na ladjudica t ion , whether by damages o r a rmanentin junc t ion ." Sal inger [ 607 F.3d a t 81. A cour t mustnot presume t ha t a p la in t i f f wi l l s u f f e r i r reparab leharm; it must "ac tua l ly cons ider the in jury thep la in t i f f wi l l suf fe r i f he o r she lo ses on thepre l iminary unct ion bu t t imate ly preva i l s on themer i t s . " Id . a t 80.

Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Seghers[ 2010 U.S. Dis t . LEXIS107686, a t *15-16 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8[ 2010). a i n t i f f hasnot pointed to any damages which cannot be remedied a f t e r af ina l ad jud ica t ion .

Furthermore, Pla in t i f f [ s delay in br inging her motionfo r a l iminary in junc t ion be l ie s her claim of i r reparab leharm. inger , 607 F.3d a t 75-76. "An unreasonable delaysugges ts t ha t the pIa i f f may have acquiesced th ein f r ing ing ac t i v i t y or t ha t any harm suffered i s not so severeas to be ' i r r epa rab l e . ' " Feiner v. Turner Enter ta inment Co., 98F.3d 33 [ 34 (2d Cir . 1996) (18 month delay in br inging copyr ightinfr ingement s u i t rebut ted presumption of i r reparab le harm),abrogated on o ther grounds by ____~ ~ _ , 607 F.3d a t 75.According to Pl a i n t i f f , many of the leged infr ingements have

20



23/25

been on Photobucket ' s s e s ince 2008. (Pl . Mem. a t 3; WolkDep . , p. 325.)

h. The Balance o f Hardships Does Not Weigh in Pla in t i f f ' sFavor

Where a p l a i n t i f f has fa i led to demonst al ike l ihood success on the meri t s buts has demonstra ted\ \ suff ic ient se r ious ques t ions going to the mer i t s , " the Courtshould i s sue an in junct ion where "balance of hardship t i p [s ]dec idedly in p l a i n t i f f ' s favor ." Sa l inger , 607 F.3d a t 7980 (c i t a t ions omi t t ed) . Due to Photobucket ' s e l i g i b i l i t y fo rsa fe harbor ions under the DMCA, P l a i n t i f f has not r a i s eds u f f i c i e n t ly se r ious ques t ions going to th e mer i t s . a in t i f falso f a i l s to show t h a t the balance of hardsh ips t i p s in h erfavor .

P l a i n t i f f contends t ha t f to gran t he rw i l l requ i re her to f ind in f r ing ing ac t ty on Photobucke t ' ss and r epor t it to them through DMCA-compliant no t ices . Shecontends t ha t t h i s w i l l be d i f f i c u l t and l abor in tens ive .However, the purpose of h er motion i s to s h i f t t h a t same burdento Photobucket , without photobucket having th e b en e f i t ofknowing whether P l a i n t i f f has au thor ized any of her works to bedisplayed on i t s s While, as P l a i n t i f f po in t s out ,

f

21



24/25

Photobucket i s the l a rge r en te rp r i se , the burden it would bearin having to con t inua l ly search i t s s i t e fo r in f r ing ing ac t i v i t yi s heavy. Furthermore, sadd l ing Photobucket with t srespons ib i l i ty i s out of s tep with the DMCA, which, as notedabove, places the burden of uncovering in f r ing ing ac t i v i t y oncopyr ight holders .

c . The Public Interes t Would Be Disserved By Issuing theInjunct ion

Fina l ly , the Court must cons ider whether the "pub l i c ' si n t e r e s t weighs in favor of grant ing an in junc t ion ." MetroTaxicab, 615 F.3d a t 156, c i t i ng Winter , 555 U.S. 7.

As noted above, the DMCA provides a scheme under whichcopyr ight holders no t i fy ISPs of a l leged in f r ing ing mat a l ont h e i r s i t e s , and the ISPs act to remove such mater ia l . To theextent t ha t P l a i n t i f f has ava i led h e r se l f of t h i s scheme, it hasworked. However, P l a i n t i f f seeks to s h i f t the burden of f indinginf r inging mater ia l to the ISP. Such a s h i f t would render ISPsrespons ib le fo r searching the s i t e s fo r a l l in f r ing ingmate r ia l s , a s ign i f i c a n t t a sk . P l a i n t i f f acknowledges t ha t itwould be expensive fo r Photobucket to search h eri n t e l l e c tua l proper ty , much l e s s a l l o ther copyr ighted works.(Pl . Reply Mem. a t 2 .) Plac ing such a deb i l i t a t i ng burden on

22



25/25

ISPs would defy th e purpose of th e DMCA, which was " tof a c i l i t a t e the growth of e l ec t r on i c commerce, not squelch i t . "10 Group, 586 F. Supp. 2d a t 1154, c i t i ng S. Rep. No. 105-190,105th Cong., 2d Sess . , a t 1-2 (May 11, 1998) .

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons , P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r apre l iminary i n junc t ion i s denied .

I t i s so ordered .

New York, NYMarch I!' 2011

ROBERT W. SWEETU.S.D.J .

23


Wolk v Photobucket

Documents

Transcript of Wolk v Photobucket