Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC
826 F.3d 78
2d Cir.2016Background
- Vimeo operates a user-upload video platform; users upload videos (audio+visual) and Vimeo does not pre-screen audio for copyrighted sound recordings.
- Plaintiffs are record companies alleging 199 user-posted Vimeo videos infringe copyrights in sound recordings (some fixed before Feb. 15, 1972 and some after).
- District court: granted Plaintiffs partial summary judgment that §512(c) DMCA safe harbor does not apply to pre‑1972 recordings (state-law protection); granted Vimeo summary judgment on many post‑1972 videos where no employee viewing was shown; denied summary judgment on several videos where employees had viewed content, finding triable red‑flag knowledge issues; rejected willful‑blindness theory.
- Vimeo appealed certified questions regarding (1) whether §512(c) covers pre‑1972 sound recordings; (2) whether an employee’s viewing of a video containing all or virtually all of a recognizable song establishes "red flag" knowledge; and (3) whether Plaintiffs proved Vimeo’s willful blindness.
- Second Circuit: held §512(c) safe harbor covers pre‑1972 sound recordings (vacating that part of the district court ruling); held mere employee viewing of a video containing a recognizable song is insufficient to prove red‑flag knowledge and remanded denials of summary judgment for reconsideration; affirmed district court rejection of willful‑blindness theory as applied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §512(c) safe harbor apply to pre‑1972 sound recordings protected by state law? | §512(c) only shields federal‑law copyright liability; §301(c) preserves state rights for pre‑1972 recordings so safe harbor should not displace state claims. | §512(c)’s plain text bars liability "for infringement of copyright" broadly; excluding state claims would defeat DMCA’s purpose to protect service providers and require burdensome monitoring. | Safe harbor applies to pre‑1972 recordings; district court partial SJ for Plaintiffs vacated. |
| Can an employee’s viewing of a user video that plays all/almost all of a recognizable copyrighted song establish "red flag" knowledge under §512(c)(1)(A)(ii)? | Viewing plus recognizable/famous song is enough to show facts that make infringement apparent (red flag). | Employee viewing alone is insufficient because viewing may be brief or for other purposes and ordinary employees lack music/copyright expertise; plaintiff bears burden to prove disqualifying knowledge. | Mere viewing (without more) is insufficient to prove red‑flag knowledge; rulings denying SJ on that basis vacated and remanded. |
| Can willful blindness or a policy of encouraging infringement impute knowledge to Vimeo and defeat safe harbor? | Vimeo’s selective monitoring (visual but not audio) and employee comments show willful blindness and encouragement of infringement. | §512(m) relieves providers of an obligation to monitor; isolated employee comments do not show a company‑wide policy imputing knowledge of specific infringements. | District court correctly rejected willful‑blindness theory on these facts; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (explains actual vs. red‑flag knowledge under §512(c) and applies willful‑blindness framework)
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses §512 safe harbor burden allocation and affirming lower court reasoning)
- Tasini v. New York Times Co., 206 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000) (canon on interpreting statutory exceptions to preserve primary operation of provision)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (agency interpretations merit deference proportional to their persuasive power)