Viral DRM LLC v. Francisco Morante Fuentes
3:23-cv-05045
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 14, 2025Background
- Viral DRM LLC sued Francisco Morante Fuentes for allegedly downloading and re-uploading its copyrighted content to YouTube.
- After Fuentes failed to respond, Viral DRM sought and obtained default, then moved for default judgment.
- The court questioned Viral DRM’s standing to bring copyright claims and demanded evidence of appropriate licensing.
- Viral DRM provided agreements and declarations, but the documentation was unclear, generalized, and inconsistent across related cases.
- The court found it could not determine if Viral DRM actually held exclusive rights or had the authority to bring suit under copyright law.
- The court denied default judgment and dismissed the case for lack of standing, also denying leave to amend due to repeated failures to clarify ownership and rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Copyright Act §501(b) | Viral DRM has exclusive rights via license agreements | No appearance | No standing; agreements did not grant exclusive rights to sue |
| Standing under DMCA §512(f) | As licensee/representative, can seek damages for false filings | No appearance | No standing; record unclear on ownership/licensing |
| Standing under CMI Removal §§1202(a),(b) | Can bring claim due to rights over watermarked works | No appearance | No standing; unclear relationship to watermarked works |
| Leave to add videographers as nominal plaintiffs | Citing equity, allow amendment to add owners | No appearance | Denied; prior opportunities failed to clarify claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvers v. Sony Pictures Ent., Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that only owners of exclusive rights under § 106 have standing to sue for infringement)
- Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that only an assignment or exclusive license suffices for standing in copyright cases)
- DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017) (nonexclusive licenses do not confer standing to sue for copyright infringement)
- Ecological Rts. Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is broad where complaint has previously been amended)