Author Archives: cdisheroon

Copyright and the Selfie

by Cara Disheroon, attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

l1aYeIn the ever transitioning world of copyright law, issues surrounding the selfie have recently taken center stage. The latest dispute involves a selfie taken by a monkey who, in 2011 in Indonesia, grabbed wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera to snap a wide-smiling image of itself. Wikipedia subsequently placed the image in Wikimedia Commons, the area of Wikipedia that holds open-source material. Slater then requested that the photo be removed as he was the copyright owner and Wiki refused. You can visit Mr. Slater’s webpage for additional examples of his work here.

Wikimedia stated to the Huffington Post in response to the controversy “We didn’t think the monkey owned the copyright – instead, our assessment was that there’s no one who owns the copyright. That means that the image falls into the public domain.”

It appears that the US Copyright Office agrees with Wiki’s analysis. Two weeks after the controversy broke, the agency issued a 1,222 page draft compendium analyzing federal copyright law in which it stated “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.” Within Chapter 300, which outlines the “Human Authorship Requirement,” the Office noted that copyright law protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that are “founded in the creative powers of the mind.” A photograph taken by a monkey was specified in the list of examples NOT protected.

A similar ownership issue surrounding the selfie has also arisen in the context of the Ellen DeGeneres group selfie taken at this year’s Oscars and posted on Twitter. The photo, taken in the audience during the ceremony, quickly became the most tweeted photo of all time and DeGeneres later granted the Associated Press permission to share the photo for editorial purposes to subscribers of AP’s photo service. But legal scholars noted that DeGeneres may not be the actual owner of the copyright.   As Bradley Cooper technically pressed the button, he could arguably be the copyright owner given the courts view historically that pressing the shutter created ownership.

Should Cooper attempt to stake a claim, DeGeneres could have an argument based on Brod v. General Publishing Group, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2544 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2002). In Brod, a photographer sued a book author for using his photographs without permission. The court found however, that the book author was a co-owner since his contributions to the process were “sufficiently original and expressive.” The copyrightable expressions in Brod included selection and arranging of subject matter, composition, camera angle and lighting.

As Bradley Cooper is unlikely to assert a copyright claim, the incident currently serves only as an interesting hypothetical. However, as technology advances, issues over authorship in the photography/video context will likely arise again as physical snapping of the shutter is no longer required to produce artistic works.

Is CafePress a Service Provider and Could Its Stripping of Metadata Cost It Safe Harbor Status Under the DMCA?

by Cara Disheroon, attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

The Southern District of California recently grappled with these issues in Steven M. Gardner v. CafePress Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014). The case centered on a copyright infringement claim against the self-publishing site CafePress and provides an interesting analysis of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) at 17 U.S.C. § 512.

The facts regarding the images were undisputed.  Plaintiff, Gardner alleged copyright infringement of various wildlife images which were distributed for sale on the site by CafePress users. Gardner filed suit and CafePress, on the same day they received the complaint, disabled access to the alleged infringing material.  Subsequently, they discovered a second member’s use of the artist’s work and immediately disabled and terminated the second user’s account. Before the material was disabled however, $6,320 worth of products was sold. CafePress then moved for summary judgment based on the safe harbor provision of § 512.

In analyzing whether CafePress could take advantage of the safe harbor provision, the court began with an analysis of the term “service provider” under § 512(c). Noting that the language “a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor” was a broad definition, they then compared CafePress to other vendors such as Amazon and eBay. Unlike these companies however, CafePress’s service differed as they actually determine the prices for retail products, pay users only a royalty or commission, possess the ability to modify designs and determine which products are sold. The court found CafePress’s activities to be beyond a service that “merely facilitates the exchange of information between internet users” and thus the court was unable to find as a matter of law, that CafePress was a “service provider.”

Moreover, § 512(i) requires that the provider must have “adopted and reasonably implemented” a policy to terminate repeat infringers and not interfere with “standard technical measures” used to protect copyrighted works. Plaintiff contended that CafePress interfered with “standard technical measures” by deleting metadata when images are uploaded to the website. The court agreed stating that the deletion created a dispute of material fact thereby precluding judgment as a matter of law and adding “From a logical perspective, metadata appears to be an easy and economical way to attach copyright information to an image.” At this stage, the discussion is only dicta but it is nevertheless important as the court appears to be placing the burden on CafePress and given the fact that many social media sites routinely strip metadata, a ruling on the merits could potentially affect a whole host of sites which conduct the practice.

CafePress did prevail on its Motion for Partial Judgment as to statutory damages and attorney fees given that Gardner had failed to register his images before the alleged infringement. Concluding that the alleged acts constituted the same “series of acts” that commenced prior to registration of the images, the court granted CafePress’s motion. This means that Gardner is limited to his actual damages of $6,320 and may affect whether the case proceeds to trial.

If the case does proceed however, a ruling by the court on the merits could have a huge impact on numerous self-publishing sites with the potential loss of safe harbor status and the risk of significant statutory damages.

 

Court Holds That IP Address Evidence Is Not Sufficient to Allege Claim for Copyright Infringement

Guest post by Cara Disheroon, attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Cara L DisheroonIn Elf-Man LLC v. Cariveau, No. C13-0507RSL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Wash., Jan.17, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that a production company’s complaint alleging copyright infringement for the internet downloading of its film, “Elf-Man,” did not state a “plausible” ground for relief when the company’s only evidence of infringement was the use of defendants’ IP addresses.

The production company initially filed an action against 152 Doe defendants for allegedly downloading the film using the BitTorrent application, which identified defendants through their IP address.  Following a dismissal of the Doe defendants in the original complaint, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint naming eighteen individual defendants.  Four of these defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim that was “plausible” under the Federal Rules.

The court agreed stating that plaintiff provided no factual allegations that supported claims that defendants directly or indirectly stole copyrighted material.  Noting that plaintiff alleged only that the defendants purchased internet access and failed to ensure that others did not use that access to download copyrighted material, the Court addressed the claims of direct, contributory, and indirect infringement in turn.   Regarding the direct and indirect infringement allegations, the court reasoned that the mere identification of defendants’ IP address “tells us very little about who actually downloaded Elf-Man using that IP address.”  Citing various other possibilities, including another family member, guest, or freeloader who could have engaged in the infringing activity, the Court found that plaintiff alleged facts that were merely possible.  In the eyes of the court, it was also possible that defendants simply failed to secure their connection against third-party interlopers.  The conclusory allegations of the complaint therefore failed to give rise to a plausible inference.

Regarding the indirect infringement claim, the Court again found that plaintiff’s complaint was conclusory and failed to provide facts that would support a finding that defendants intentionally encouraged or promoted the infringement.  Plaintiff argued that defendants should be held liable for contributory infringement “because they failed to take affirmative steps to prevent unauthorized use of their internet access….” The Court, while agreeing with plaintiff that courts continue to analyze contributory liability claims and that not all issues had been litigated, held that courts have fixed the requirement that defendant’s contribution to the infringement be intentional.  Absent this essential element of the claim, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

The decision arguably adds to the already difficult burden of copyright holders to protect their works from online infringement but also demonstrates the balancing act of courts which require proof that a particular individual behind the IP address actually pirated the copyrighted work.