Viral DRM LLC v. Henniker
3:24-cv-06354
| N.D. Cal. | Feb 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Viral DRM LLC acts as a syndicator and exclusive agent for videographers who produce videos of weather events, managing and enforcing rights in these works.
- Viral DRM does not own the copyrights but claims “exclusive agency rights” to manage the content, register copyrights, pursue infringement claims, and negotiate settlements.
- Viral DRM alleges Seven West Media Limited downloaded and reposted Viral DRM's content on YouTube, removing copyright management information (CMI) and substituting its own, causing harm to Viral DRM.
- Seven West moved to dismiss, arguing that Viral DRM lacks standing under both the Copyright Act and DMCA, based largely on an exemplar agreement and the content of its complaint.
- The court considered the contractual language, especially the distinction between having management rights versus exclusive ownership or an exclusive license under the Copyright Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Copyright Act | Agency agreement gives right to sue | No exclusive ownership or license; management rights are not enough | Dismissed: No statutory standing under Copyright Act |
| Standing under DMCA (Statutory) | Any injured party may sue under DMCA | Only copyright holders can bring DMCA claims | Denied: "Any person" injured can bring DMCA claim |
| Article III Standing for DMCA Claims | Allegations of actual injury from CMI removal | No particularized damages alleged | Denied: Alleged CMI removal/injury sufficient for standing |
| Leave to Amend Copyright Claims | Seeks to add videographers as plaintiffs | Seeks dismissal with prejudice due to lack of standing | Granted: Leave to amend to add additional plaintiffs allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017) (exclusive agency rights must map onto Section 106 rights to confer standing)
- Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2015) (exclusive right to authorize licensing can confer standing)
- Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2013) (bare assignment of right to sue without transfer of exclusive rights is insufficient for standing)
- Silvers v. Sony Pictures Ent., Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (only legal or beneficial owner of exclusive right has standing under Copyright Act)