Automattic Inc. v. Steiner
Decision Date | 02 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. C 13–5413 PJH,C 13–5413 PJH |
Citation | 82 F.Supp.3d 1011,115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1710 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | Automattic Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nick Steiner, Defendant. |
Joseph Charles Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero's report and recommendation regarding plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. The report and recommendation was filed on October 6, 2014. During the intervening time, plaintiffs Automattic, Inc. (“Automattic”) and Oliver Hotham (“Hotham”) have been attempting to serve defendant Nick Steiner (who resides in the United Kingdom) with a copy of the report and recommendation, but have to date been unsuccessful.
Although defendant was not served with the report and recommendation, and thus did not file any objections, the court is satisfied by Judge Spero's detailed findings that the summons and complaint were properly served on defendant. There is no clear requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that a report and recommendation be served on the opposing party. However, the court normally requests that the moving party do so, out of an abundance of caution. In this case, given that defendant was properly served (notwithstanding the difficulty of service in the U.K. under the Hague Convention) yet chose to default, the court will require no further expenditure of resources.
The court finds the report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered for the plaintiffs, and the court awards plaintiffs damages in the amount of $960.00 for Hotham's work and time, $1,860.00 for time spent by Automattic's employees, and $22,264.00 for Automattic's attorney's fees, for a total of $25,084.00.
This action arises under subsection (f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (“DMCA”), which provides a cause of action against any person who “knowingly materially misrepresents” that material or activity infringes a copyright to utilize the DMCA's takedown notice procedures. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Plaintiffs Automattic Inc. (“Automattic”) and Oliver Hotham (“Hotham”) allege that Defendant Nick Steiner (“Defendant”) violated subsection 512(f) by knowingly misrepresenting that Hotham published material on Automattic's website that infringed Defendant's copyright. Defendant has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to this action, and default has been entered by the clerk. Docket No. 21.
On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”). A hearing was held at which the Court requested supplemental evidence regarding damages. For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED.
Congress passed the DMCA in 1998, adding § 512 to Title 17 of the U.S.Code. See 17 U.S.C. § 512. The purpose of the DMCA was to create an environment that facilitated electronic commerce, digital technology, and expression while protecting intellectual property rights. S. Rep. No. 105190, at 2 (1998). Subsection 512(c) provides a detailed procedure through which a copyright owner may request removal of infringing content from a web-publishing platform. Id. § 512(c). If a copyright owner believes in good faith that content is infringing, the owner may send a “takedown notice” to the service provider pursuant to subsection 512(c)(3), and the service provider then must remove or disable access to the material “expeditiously” or face infringement liability itself. Id. §§ 512(c)(1)(C), (c)(3).
The DMCA also creates liability for individuals who abuse the takedown notice system by filing meritless claims of infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Subsection 512(f) provides that any person who makes knowing, material misrepresentations in filing a DMCA takedown notice “shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees[ ] incurred by the alleged infringer ... or by a service provider ...” Id.
Hotham is a student journalist residing in London who maintains a blog on WordPress.com, a web-publishing platform operated by Automattic. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12–13. Automattic is a corporation based in San Francisco that operates WordPress as an open source for users to “work on, change or contribute to” in an effort to “empower a community of bloggers.” Sieminski Decl. (Dkt. 22–6) ¶¶ 13–14. While Automattic's free and user-friendly hosting of digital content promotes expression, it also creates potential for copyright infringement. See Doe v. Ge ll er, 533 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1001 (N.D.Cal.2008) ( ).
In May or June of 2013, Hotham read an article about an organization called Straight Pride UK on the blog BuzzFeed. Compl. ¶ 21. On July 26, 2013, Hotham contacted Straight Pride UK, identifying himself as “a student and freelance journalist.” Compl. ¶ 22. Hotham asked if he could send Straight Pride UK “some questions about [the] organisation ... to find out a bit about who's involved and what [it] hope[d] to accomplish.” Id.
On July 29, 2013, a staffer from Straight Pride UK responded affirmatively, and Hotham promptly sent a list of questions. Compl. ¶¶ 23–24. Defendant responded to Hotham's questions on August 1, 2013. Compl. ¶ 25. In his email response, Defendant identified himself as the “Press Officer” for Straight Pride UK, and attached a PDF file named “Press Statement—Oliver Hotham.pdf” Compl. ¶ 26, Ex. A (“Press Statement”).
On August 3, 2013, Hotham posted an article to his blog on WordPress in which he discussed the information provided by Straight Pride UK in the Press Statement. Hotham wrote:
Compl. ¶ 29. Hotham also posted the questions he sent to Straight Pride UK and the corresponding answers in the Press Statement. Compl. ¶ 30.
On the same day that Hotham posted the article on the blog at WordPress, Defendant sent an email to both Hotham and Automattic with the subject line: “Digital Millennium Copyright Act—Removal Request”. Compl. ¶ 31. Defendant wrote:
Gratz Decl. (Dkt. 22–1) Ex. B.
Automattic responded to Defendant and informed him that the “DMCA Takedown Notice has been received and reviewed for completeness,” and that Automattic “disabled access to the material identified as infringing.” Id. Automattic also informed Defendant that Hotham would have an opportunity to formally challenge this removal. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Automattic disabled access to Hotham's blog post in reliance on Defendant's takedown notice. See Compl. ¶ 36 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moonbug Entm't Ltd. v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Tech. Co., Ltd
... ... Satava v. Lowry , 323 F.3d 805, 810 (9th Cir. 2003)); ... Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Ent., Inc. , 616 F.3d 904, 914 ... (9th Cir. 2010), as amended on denial of reh'g ... Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 17.32; 17 ... U.S.C. § 512(f); Automattic Inc. v. Steiner , 82 ... F.Supp.3d 1011, 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Recovery of ... ...
- Fr. Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc.
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Nevatia
- Spanski Enters., Inc. v. Telewizja Polska S.A., Civil Action No. 12–cv–957 (TSC)
-
Case Comments
...per hour, based on an AIPLA survey stating the average IP billing rate in San Francisco was $546 per hour. Automatic, Inc. v. Steiner, 115 U.S.P.Q2d 1710 (N.D. Cal. 2015).COPYRIGHT - PLEADING The court found no case requiring plaintiff to identify which of over 100 allegedly owned copyright......