Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A.
883 F.3d 904
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- TV Polska, Poland’s public broadcaster, operates a video-on-demand (VOD) site for TVP Polonia content but uses geoblocking to restrict access from North and South America per a 2009 settlement granting Spanski exclusive American performance rights.
- During late 2011–early 2012, 51 TVP Polonia episodes registered to Spanski were accessible and at least partially viewed in the U.S. via TV Polska’s VOD site despite supposed geoblocking.
- TV Polska employees manage two systems: a Workflow System (technicians encode formats) and a Content Management System (editors set territorial restrictions); the default Content Management setting then was “minus America.”
- The district court found TV Polska employees removed territorial restrictions and/or created non-geoblocked formats, that the episodes were viewed in the U.S., and that evidence had been tampered with; it held TV Polska liable for public-performance copyright infringement.
- The district court awarded statutory damages of $60,000 per episode (total $3,060,000), finding willfulness based on deliberate de-geoblocking and efforts to conceal the conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Spanski's Argument | TV Polska's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transmitting copyrighted VOD content to U.S. viewers is a "public performance" under the Copyright Act | TV Polska’s transmissions to U.S. screens are public performances violating §106(4) | VOD is automated and user-initiated; operator passive delivery cannot be direct infringement | Held: Transmission to U.S. viewers is a public performance; Aereo controls and TV Polska’s active role defeats passive-conduit defense |
| Whether volitional-conduct requirement bars direct infringement here | Volition present because operator selected, uploaded, and programmed access; active conduct suffices | Argues courts require independent volitional act beyond user request; otherwise liability too broad | Held: Aereo forecloses this defense; operator’s selection/transmission is volitional enough |
| Whether applying the Copyright Act here is an impermissible extraterritorial application | Infringing conduct is the performance occurring on U.S. screens, so application is domestic | All operative acts occurred in Poland; applying U.S. law would be extraterritorial | Held: Domestic application permissible — the statute’s focus is protecting exclusive rights and the relevant conduct (the performance) occurred in the U.S. |
| Whether statutory damages/willfulness and number of infringed works were properly found | Willfulness established by de-geoblocking and evidence tampering; plaintiff proved 51 works viewed in U.S. | Challenges willfulness finding and contends only 36 episodes were viewed in U.S. | Held: District court’s factual findings on willfulness and on viewing of 51 episodes were not clearly erroneous; damages affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (holding retransmission service’s transmissions can constitute public performances under the Copyright Act)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (two-step extraterritoriality framework; analyze statutory focus to determine permissible domestic application)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (statutory "focus" test for extraterritoriality analysis)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (elements of copyright liability: valid copyright and infringing act)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (distributor immunity for devices capable of substantial noninfringing uses)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (secondary liability where product distribution is intended to induce infringement)
- Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) (discussion of willfulness standard in patent context; cited regarding review standard)
- Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (extraterritoriality bars copyright liability for infringements occurring abroad)