Alexis Hunley v. Instagram, LLC
73 F.4th 1060
9th Cir.2023Background
- Instagram users post photos to public profiles; Instagram stores those images on its servers and grants Instagram a sublicense to display them.
- Instagram provides an "embed" feature: third-party sites (e.g., BuzzFeed, Time) include HTML that directs a user’s browser to retrieve and display images from Instagram’s servers without the embedding site storing a copy.
- Hunley and Brauer (photographers) had Instagram posts embedded by BuzzFeed and Time; neither embedding site stored or licensed the images from the photographers.
- Plaintiffs sued Instagram for inducement, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement under the exclusive public-display right (17 U.S.C. §106(5)), alleging Instagram enabled third parties to display their works without permission.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice, holding Perfect 10 v. Amazon’s "Server Test" forecloses direct-infringement liability for embedders that do not host copies; Hunley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether embedding a publicly hosted Instagram post constitutes "display[ing] a copy" under §106(5) | Embedding makes the work perceptible on third-party sites, so it should qualify as displaying a copy | Embedders merely direct browsers to a copy hosted on Instagram’s server; they do not store or transmit a fixed copy | Court: Embedding does not display a copy for §106(5) purposes under Perfect 10’s Server Test; no direct infringement by embedders |
| Whether Perfect 10’s Server Test is limited to search engines | Server Test should be limited to search engines and not apply to social-media embedding | Server Test applies to the method of display (embedding), not the type of site | Court: Server Test is not limited to search engines and applies here |
| Whether Perfect 10 conflicts with the Copyright Act (e.g., conflating display with reproduction) | Server Test unlawfully narrows the display right and makes other statutory provisions superfluous | Perfect 10’s interpretation of fixation and "copy" governs; panel bound by precedent | Court: Arguments foreclosed by Perfect 10; panel will not overrule without en banc or Supreme Court intervention |
| Whether Aereo undermines Perfect 10 and requires a different result | Aereo’s focus on user perception and functional equivalence means embedding should be treated like retransmission/performing | Aereo addressed public performance (not display) and did not negate the fixation requirement for display; volitional conduct remains required | Court: Aereo does not overrule Perfect 10; differences between performance and display rights and volitional-conduct requirement keep Perfect 10 controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishes Server Test: direct display under §106(5) requires a copy fixed on the defendant’s server)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, 573 U.S. 431 (2014) (Supreme Court on public-performance/transmit clause and when a service "performs")
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (fixation requires storage in a computer’s memory or server)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) (discusses causation/volitional conduct and secondary-liability thresholds)
- Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network, 747 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (volitional-conduct requirement for direct infringement)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) (user perception relevant to reproduction/fixation analysis but not dispositive for display)