Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
676 F.3d 19 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6909 **; 102 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1283 ***; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P30,231; 2012 WL 1130851
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., COMEDY PARTNERS, COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, GOOGLE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, BOURNE CO., CAL IV ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, CHERRY LANE MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., X-RAY DOG MUSIC, INC., FÉDÉRATION FRANÇAISE DE TENNIS, MURBO MUSIC PUBLISHING, INC., STAGE THREE MUSIC (US), INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert Tur, d/b/a Los Angeles News Service, The Scottish Premier League Limited, The Music Force Media Group LLC, The Music Force, LLC, Sin-Drome Records, Ltd., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, National Music Publishers' Association, The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, Edward B. Marks Music Company, Freddy Bienstock Music Company, d/b/a Bienstock Publishing Company, Alley Music Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, GOOGLE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
Subsequent History: As Corrected May 2, 2012.
As Amended June 28, 2012.
On remand at, Summary judgment granted by Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56646 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 18, 2013)
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Louis L. Stanton, Judge), granting summary judgment to the defendants-appellees on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement based on a finding that the defendants-appellees were entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 512. Although the District Court correctly held that the § 512(c) safe harbor requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, we vacate the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website. We further hold that the District Court erred by interpreting the "right and ability to control" infringing activity to require "item-specific" knowledge. Finally, we affirm the District Court's holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fall within the safe harbor for infringement that occurs "by reason of" storage at the direction of the user, and remand for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function.
Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62829 (S.D.N.Y., 2010)
Disposition: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and [**2] remanded.
infringing, service provider, safe harbor, videos, user, network, actual knowledge, website, clips, circumstances, blindness, ability to control, storage, red flag, summary judgment, notification, willful, copyright infringement, League, monitoring, clips-in-suit, expeditiously, provisions, functions, software, disable, upload, grant summary judgment, plaintiffs', provider
Copyright Law, Copyright Infringement Actions, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, General Overview, Prohibited Conduct, Pertinent Online Activities, Safe Harbor Provisions, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review