Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Pinterest’s motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement action concerning Pinterest notifications that linked users to images stored on Pinterest’s servers. The court holds that Pinterest’s conduct falls within the DMCA safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), finding that the alleged infringement occurred by reason of storage at the direction of a user and that the record lacked evidence of Pinterest’s actual or red-flag knowledge. The excerpt does not include the court’s analysis of all remaining issues or the order’s date.
Holdings
- Pinterest established that the alleged infringement occurred by reason of storage at the direction of a user because its automatic file-format standardization, creation of image variants, algorithmic presentation, and hyperlink-based notifications were narrowly directed toward facilitating access to user-uploaded content.
- Pinterest established that the record lacked evidence that it had actual or red-flag knowledge of the alleged infringing display.
- Pinterest did not have the right and ability to control the alleged infringing display within the meaning of Section 512(c)(1)(B).
- Pinterest did not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the display of Harrington's copyrighted photograph.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pinterest's display of Harrington's copyrighted photograph through an email notification occurred by reason of storage at the direction of a user under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1).
- Whether Pinterest lacked actual or red-flag knowledge of the alleged infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A).
- Whether Pinterest had the right and ability to control the alleged infringement or received a financial benefit directly attributable to it under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B).
- Whether any genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment on Pinterest's Section 512(c) DMCA safe-harbor defense.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- Davis v. Pinterest, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 3d 514 (N.D. Cal. 2023)(followed in part; distinguished in part)
- Davis v. Pinterest, Inc., No. 22-15804, 2023 WL 5695992, at *1-*2 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2023)(followed and distinguished)
- Hunley v. Instagram, LLC, 73 F.4th 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 256 (1986)(followed)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014)(followed)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)(followed)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986)(followed)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 873 F.3d 1045, 1052-56, 1063 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed and distinguished)
- Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc., 885 F.3d 597, 603-06, 609-10, 613, 615 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.