IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Artist’s $100M infringement, DMCA claims against YouTube recommended for dismissal, (Dec 7, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A music artist failed to state a copyright infringement claim or violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against YouTube, LLC, according to a federal magistrate judge for the federal district court in San Jose. In recommending dismissal of the complaint, the magistrate judge concluded that the artist failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the video-sharing website violated the artist’s ownership rights, that YouTube did not comply with the DMCA, or that YouTube’s takedown request notification system was inadequate (Albert v. YouTube, LLC, December 4, 2015, Cousins, N.).

The music artist claims that YouTube failed to “even consider” a copyright infringement takedown notice he sent concerning a music video performed by his band, Marc Mysterio, for the song “Everything Is All Wrong.” He sent the alleged takedown request through YouTube’s system, but was denied the request because the music video was received under license from VEVO. The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and monopolization. Because the artist was proceeding in forma pauperis, the court was required to preliminarily screen the complaint to ensure it stated a claim.

Copyright infringement, DMCA. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the copyright infringement claim due to failure to allege: (1) that showing the music video on YouTube violated the artist’s ownership rights; and (2) that VEVO does not have the power to license the content to YouTube for public consumption. In addition, the DMCA claim was recommended for dismissal because the artist did not allege facts suggesting YouTube did not comply with the DMCA sufficient to qualify for a safe harbor under the statute, or that YouTube has an insufficient notification system for dealing with takedown requests.

Monopolization. The magistrate also determined that the monopolization claim was inadequately alleged. In particular, the artist alleged that YouTube violated the Sherman Act by “creating a monopoly by and through aforementioned abusive practices.” The allegations, however, were devoid of any facts defining a “relevant market” for antitrust purposes, the court determined. Further, conclusory allegations that YouTube created a monopoly and references to heavy web traffic on YouTube did not remedy the deficiency. The magistrate therefore recommended dismissal of the monopolization claim without leave to amend.

The case number is 15-cv-05283 NC.

Companies: YouTube, LLC

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews