Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., s. 13–16106

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: TALLMAN, Circuit Judge
• Citation: 801 F.3d 1126,115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1965
• Parties: Stephanie LENZ, Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP.; Universal Music Publishing Inc. ; Universal Music Publishing Group Inc., Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
• Docket Number: 13–16107.,Nos. 13–16106,s. 13–16106
• Decision Date: 14 September 2015

801 F.3d 1126
115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1965

Stephanie LENZ, Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant
v.
UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP.; Universal Music Publishing Inc. ; Universal Music Publishing Group Inc., Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.

Nos. 13–16106
13–16107.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2015.
Filed Sept. 14, 2015.

801 F.3d 1128

Kelly M. Klaus (argued) and Melinda LeMoine, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.

Corynne McSherry (argued), Cindy Cohn, Kurt Opsahl, Daniel K. Nazer, and Julie Samuels, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA; Ashok Ramani, Michael S. Kwun, and Theresa H. Nguyen, Keker & Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant.

Steven Fabrizio and Scott Wilkens, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.

Jennifer Pariser, Of Counsel, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington, D.C.; Cynthia Arato, Marc Isserles, and Jeremy Licht, Shapiro, Arato & Isserles LLP, New York, N.Y., for Amicus Curiae Recording Industry Association of America.

Joseph Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae Google Inc., Twitter Inc., and Tumblr, Inc.

Marvin Ammori and Lavon Ammori, Ammori Group, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Automatic, Inc.

Julie Ahrens and Timothy Greene, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, Stanford, CA, for Amici Curiae Organization for Transformative Works, Public Knowledge, and International Documentary Association.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:07–cv–03783–JF.

Before: RICHARD C. TALLMAN, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., and MARY H. MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge TALLMAN ; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.

801 F.3d 1129

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

Stephanie Lenz filed suit under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) —part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”)—against Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing, Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group (collectively “Universal”). She alleges Universal misrepresented in a takedown notification that her 29–second home video (the “video”) constituted an infringing use of a portion of a composition by the Artist known as Prince, which Universal insists was unauthorized by the law. Her claim boils down to a question of whether copyright holders have been abusing the extrajudicial takedown procedures provided for in the DMCA by declining to first evaluate whether the content qualifies as fair use. We hold that the statute requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law. We affirm the denial of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

I

Founded in May 2005, YouTube (now owned by Google) operates a website that hosts user-generated content. About YouTube, YouTube.com, https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/ (last visited September 4, 2015). Users upload videos directly to the website. Id. On February 7, 2007, Lenz uploaded to YouTube a 29–second home video of her two young children in the family kitchen dancing to the song Let's Go Crazy by Prince.¹ Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ (last visited September 4, 2015). She titled the video “ ‘Let's Go Crazy’ # 1.” About four seconds into the video, Lenz asks her thirteen month-old son “what do you think of the music?” after which he bobs up and down while holding a push toy.

At the time Lenz posted the video, Universal was Prince's publishing administrator responsible for enforcing his copyrights. To accomplish this objective with respect to YouTube, Robert Allen, Universal's head of business affairs, assigned Sean Johnson, an assistant in the legal department, to monitor YouTube on a daily basis. Johnson searched YouTube for Prince's songs and reviewed the video postings returned by his online search query. When reviewing such videos, he evaluated whether they “embodied a Prince composition” by making “significant use of ... the composition, specifically if the song was recognizable, was in a significant portion of the video or was the focus of the video.” According to Allen, “[t]he general guidelines are that ... we review the video to ensure that the composition was the focus and if it was we then notify YouTube that the video should be removed.”

Johnson contrasted videos that met this criteria to those “that may have had a second or less of a Prince song, literally a one line, half line of Prince song” or “were shot in incredibly noisy environments, such as bars, where there could be a Prince song playing deep in the background ... to the point where if there was any Prince composition embodied ... in those videos that it was distorted beyond reasonable recognition.” None of the video evaluation guidelines explicitly include consideration of the fair use doctrine.

801 F.3d 1130

When Johnson reviewed Lenz's video, he recognized Let's Go Crazy immediately. He noted that it played loudly in the background throughout the entire video. Based on these details, the video's title, and Lenz's query during the video asking if her son liked the song, he concluded that Prince's song “was very much the focus of the video.” As a result, Johnson decided the video should be included in a takedown notification sent to YouTube that listed more than 200 YouTube videos Universal believed to be making unauthorized use of Prince's songs.² The notice included a “good faith belief” statement as required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) : “We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”

After receiving the takedown notification, YouTube removed the video and sent Lenz an email on June 5, 2007, notifying her of the removal. On June 7, 2007, Lenz attempted to restore the video by sending a counter-notification to YouTube pursuant to § 512(g)(3). After YouTube provided this counter-notification to Universal per § 512(g)(2)(B), Universal protested the video's reinstatement because Lenz failed to properly acknowledge that her statement was made under penalty of perjury, as required by § 512(g)(3)(C). Universal's protest reiterated that the video constituted infringement because there was no record that “either she or YouTube were ever granted licenses to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform or otherwise exploit the Composition.” The protest made no mention of fair use. After obtaining pro bono counsel, Lenz sent a second counter-notification on June 27, 2007, which resulted in YouTube's reinstatement of the video in mid-July.

II

Lenz filed the instant action on July 24, 2007, and her Amended Complaint on August 15, 2007. After the district court dismissed her tortious interference claim and request for declaratory relief, Lenz filed her Second Amended Complaint on April 18, 2008, alleging only a claim for misrepresentation under § 512(f). The district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss the action.

On February 25, 2010, the district court granted Lenz's partial motion for summary judgment on Universal's six affirmative defenses, including the third affirmative defense that Lenz suffered no damages. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment on Lenz's § 512(f) misrepresentation claim. On January 24, 2013, the district court denied both motions in an order that is now before us.

The district court certified its summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and stayed proceedings in district court pending resolution of the appeal. We granted the parties permission to bring an interlocutory appeal.

III

We review de novo the district court's denial of summary judgment. When doing so, we “must determine whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, presents any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995). On cross-motions for summary judgment, we evaluate each motion independently, “giving the nonmoving

801 F.3d 1131

party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.2003).

When evaluating an interlocutory appeal, we “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.” Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205, 116 S.Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed.2d 578 (1996) (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). We may therefore “address those issues material to the order from which appeal has been taken.” In re Cinematronics,...