Peter Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp
650 F.3d 295
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Murphy, a photographer, took a photo of Carton and Rossi for NJ Monthly which named them ‘best shock jocks’; Murphy owns the copyright in the Image.
- WKXW (Millennium Radio Group) employee scanned the Image and posted it to WKXW and myspacetv.com, removing Murphy's gutter credit identifying him as author and allowing user alterations.
- WKXW invited edits and posted 26 fan-submitted versions; Murphy did not authorize any use by WKXW.
- Murphy sued for DMCA §1202, copyright infringement, and defamation; discovery delays followed, including absence of Carton/Rossi depositions and a corporate rep for Millennium.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Station Defendants; Murphy appealed seeking denial of summary judgment and permission for further discovery.
- Court resolves in Murphy’s favor on all counts, vacating and remanding for limited discovery in the defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of CMI under §1202 | Murphy: CMI includes author name when conveyed with copies, not limited to automated systems. | Station Defendants: CMI must be tied to automated protection/management systems; §1202 limited by history. | CMI is not so restricted; §1202 covers removal of author-identifying information conveyed with copies. |
| DMCA §1202 vs. §1201 interaction | Murphy reads §1202 independently, not conditioned on §1201’s framework. | Station Defendants urge integrated reading with §1201’s automation context. | §1202 stands independently; no narrowing by §1201 required. |
| Copyright infringement and fair use balance | Murphy: posting unaltered Image without permission, non-transformative, not fair use. | Station Defendants: use was news reporting and transformative; fair use should apply. | All four Campbell factors weigh against fair use; infringement established. |
| Discovery and defamation claim | Murphy should be allowed discovery (depositions) to respond to summary judgment on defamation. | District Court ruling that 56(f) was unnecessary should stand; discovery not needed. | 56(f) remanded; defamation discovery permitted; summary judgment reversed on the defamation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1994) (fair use factors; transformative use requires added meaning)
- Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Servs., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) (licensing market considerations in fair use)
- Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) (licensing market and market harm considerations in fair use)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1985) (newsgathering does not automatically negate fair use)
- Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm’t, Inc., 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2003) (define fair use factors and transformative use)
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) (examples of circumvention and DMCA scope)
- In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010) (extraordinary contrary-intentions standard for statutory interpretation)