Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC
972 F. Supp. 2d 500
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Capitol and EMI sue Vimeo for copyright infringement over 199 videos uploaded to Vimeo.
- Vimeo operates a video-sharing site where users upload, caption, tag, and stream videos; most revenue comes from subscriptions.
- Vimeo’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines restrict infringing content; DMCA policies and takedown processes exist, but pre-screening is not performed.
- Plaintiffs seek safe harbor under DMCA §512(c); Court must resolve threshold criteria, then §512(c) defenses.
- Court grants summary judgment to Vimeo for 144 of the 199 videos; triable issues remain for 55 videos where Vimeo employees interacted with the content; pre-1972 recordings remain separately addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vimeo is a DMCA §512(c) service provider | Capitol contends Vimeo is not a service provider under §512(k)(l)(B). | Vimeo is a service provider because it hosts and distributes user content and provides related services. | Yes; Vimeo qualifies as a §512(c) service provider. |
| Repeat infringer policy adoption and communication | Capitol argues Vimeo lacked an adopted, communicated repeat infringer policy until later. | Vimeo had an inception-era policy and communicated it broadly via terms and notices. | Yes; policy adoption, communication, and reasonable implementation established. |
| Interference with standard technical measures | Vimeo’s privacy settings and practices interfere with standard technical measures. | No standard technical measure is shown to be interfered with; evidence insufficient. | No violation; does not interfere with standard technical measures. |
| Storage at the direction of a user and employee-created content | Employee-uploaded videos were stored at Vimeo’s direction, not by users. | Employee uploads may be attributed to employees acting as users or as staff of Vimeo; triable issue remains. | Tribable issue for employee-uploaded videos; 144 videos granted safe harbor, 55 remain with triable issues. |
| Knowledge of infringement (actual/red flag) and willful blindness | Vimeo had actual or red-flag knowledge about infringing content in the 55 videos. | Knowledge claims are not established for all targeted videos; willful blindness insufficient. | Triable issues exist for 55 videos; no knowledge findings as to 144 videos; expeditious removal satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (defines 512(c) threshold and willful blindness concepts; knowledge must be specific to infringements)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. Super. Ct., 545 U.S. 913 (S. Ct. 2005) (induces infringement; substantial influence framework for liability)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F.Supp.2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (example of substantial influence through monitoring programs)
- Capitol Records, Inc. v. MPStunes, LLC, 821 F.Supp.2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (repeat infringer policy and DMCA considerations)
- Fung v. Cap. Pictures Indus., Inc., 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses control and inducement in context of §512(c))