Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.
899 F.3d 666
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Photographers Stevens and Vandel license copyrighted real-estate photos to agents; images include EXIF/IPTC metadata that can contain copyright management information (CMI).
- CoreLogic provides MLS software used by agents; its image-processing (using third-party libraries) downsampled images and did not preserve some embedded metadata.
- Photographers sued under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), alleging CoreLogic removed and distributed images with CMI removed; CoreLogic updated software to preserve EXIF after suit began.
- District court granted summary judgment for CoreLogic and denied as moot Photographers' motions to compel and Rule 56(d) discovery; Photographers appealed.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, concluding plaintiffs failed to show CoreLogic knew removal would "induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal" infringement; also affirmed discovery and costs rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CoreLogic violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) by removing CMI | Removal of metadata from images impaired Photographers' ability to detect policing and will likely enable future infringement | No evidence CoreLogic knew removal would "induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal" infringement; removal resulted from standard image libraries, not intent to aid infringement | Affirmed for CoreLogic; plaintiffs failed to show the required knowledge that removal would likely aid infringement |
| Whether plaintiffs demonstrated requisite mental state under §1202(b) | Knowledge can be inferred because removal impairs identification methods | No evidence of a pattern, modus operandi, or past reliance on metadata by plaintiffs; speculative inference insufficient | Affirmed: plaintiff needed affirmative evidence (pattern or probable future impact), which they lacked |
| Whether denial of discovery / Rule 56(d) relief was improper | Additional privileged communications could show CoreLogic's knowledge and intent; discovery was necessary | Plaintiffs failed to identify specific facts that further discovery would produce or explain relevance to the dispositive issue | Affirmed: denial appropriate because plaintiffs did not satisfy Rule 56(d) specificity requirements |
| Whether corporate witness fees were taxable costs | Photographers objected to taxing corporate employee witness fees | CoreLogic argued fees for corporate employees/officers are taxable under local rule and practice | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in taxing witness fees for corporate employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (statutory interpretation principle to give effect to every clause)
- United States v. Todd, 627 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 2010) (knowledge of future acts as familiarity with a pattern or modus operandi)
- Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp., LLC, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011) (liability where visible CMI was cropped out)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996) (implicit denial of Rule 56 motion characterization)