Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.
194 F. Supp. 3d 1046
S.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are professional real‑estate photographers who licensed photos to agents for upload to Multiple Listing Services (MLSs); they retained copyright.
- CoreLogic provides software used by MLSs/agents to upload, process, store and distribute listing data and photos; historically its platform stripped EXIF/IPTC metadata during processing until code changes in 2014–2015.
- Some photos initially contained embedded copyright management information (CMI) in metadata, but metadata can be lost at many steps (agent editing, resizing, email, web libraries).
- Plaintiffs allege CoreLogic violated the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1202, by (a) providing false CMI and (b) removing or distributing images with removed CMI, facilitating infringement (includes claims under § 1202(a), (b)(1)–(3)).
- CoreLogic moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs cannot prove key elements: falsity, that CMI existed at time of upload, intentional removal, scienter that removal would facilitate infringement, or lack of authority to distribute; court granted summary judgment for CoreLogic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CoreLogic provided or distributed false CMI (§1202(a)) | CoreLogic displayed its own copyright notice near plaintiffs’ photos, amounting to false CMI | Mere proximity of a site copyright notice is not a statement claiming ownership of each image | Court: No evidence of false CMI; summary judgment for CoreLogic on §1202(a) |
| Whether CoreLogic intentionally removed or altered CMI (§1202(b)(1)) | CoreLogic’s platform removed embedded metadata when photos were uploaded | Plaintiffs cannot show CMI existed at time of upload, CoreLogic did not control uploads, and removal was an unintended artifact of libraries/software | Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove existence at upload or intentional removal; summary judgment for CoreLogic |
| Whether CoreLogic distributed or caused distribution of works with removed CMI knowing removal would facilitate infringement (§1202(b)(2)/(3)) | Distribution of images without CMI enabled or concealed infringement (citing Partner InfoNet uses) | No evidence removal led to infringement or that CoreLogic knew removal would facilitate infringement; plaintiffs never used metadata to track infringement | Court: Plaintiffs offered no scienter or causal proof; summary judgment for CoreLogic |
| Whether plaintiffs authorized use (implied license) | Plaintiffs licensed photos to agents for MLS use but allege no authority for downstream distribution to Partner InfoNet products | Plaintiffs authorized agents to upload/manipulate images for MLS use and knew agents/MLS software would process images, implying consent | Court: Implied license and industry practice undercut claim that distribution was without authority; summary judgment for CoreLogic |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine‑issue standard at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt)
- Burlington N.R.R. Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 481 U.S. 454 (statutory ambiguity and legislative history)
- Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group, 650 F.3d 295 (DMCA purpose re: technological measures)
- Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (intent requirement for metadata removal; summary judgment where only unintended side effects shown)
- Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 398 (third‑party chain can make inference of defendant removal speculative)
- Ward v. National Geographic Soc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 429 (site copyright notice on same page insufficient to prove false CMI)
- Field v. Google, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (implied license can arise from conduct and lack of objection)