Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
676 F.3d 19
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Over 79,000 YouTube clips allegedly infringed Viacom and other plaintiffs' copyrights between 2005–2008.
- District Court granted summary judgment to YouTube, finding §512(c) safe harbor applicable.
- Court held 512(c) requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringements and that removal be expeditious.
- YouTube's functions (transcoding, playback, related videos) deemed to fall within §512(c) safe harbor for storage-at-user-direction material.
- Record contained emails and internal memos suggesting awareness of specific clips; summary judgment found premature on remand.
- Court remands for fact-finding on (i) knowledge of specific infringements, (ii) willful blindness, (iii) right/ability to control, and (iv) third-party syndication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge of specific infringements | Viacom contends only specific-infringement knowledge voids safe harbor. | YouTube argues red-flag knowledge suffices to trigger §512(c). | Specific knowledge required; red-flag not enough; remanded for fact-finding on items. |
| Whether 'right and ability to control' requires item-specific knowledge | Viacom argues control requires knowledge of infringing items. | YouTube argues control can exist without item-specific knowledge. | District Court erred; remanded to assess control via a fact-based inquiry without item-specific knowledge prerequisite. |
| Whether three YouTube functions fall within 'by reason of storage' safe harbor | Plaintiffs contend transcoding, playback, and related videos exceed storage-only scope. | YouTube contends these functions facilitate access and are protected. | Three functions affirmed as within safe harbor; remand on a fourth function about third-party syndication. |
| Whether willful blindness can establish knowledge under §512(c)(1)(A) | Willful blindness shows knowledge of infringements. | DMCA §512(m) limits monitoring; willful blindness not categorically required. | Willful blindness may be applied in appropriate circumstances; remand for district court consideration. |
| Whether summary judgment was premature given disputed issues | Viacom argues record shows genuine disputes on knowledge and control. | YouTube asserts safe harbor forecloses liability as a matter of law. | Summary judgment premature; remand for further fact-finding on multiple §512(c) issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2011) (limits of knowledge for §512(c)(1)(A) and applies to red-flag knowledge)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (control/monetary liability under §512(c) discussed)
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (willful blindness as knowledge in certain contexts)
- Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (DMCA safe harbors and monitoring standards context)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (monetary liability and primary infringement concepts in copyright)
- In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) (willful blindness and knowledge concepts in copyright)