IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Federal court will hear California Tiger King dispute over foreign rights, (Apr 17, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

The videographer’s foreign claims implicated federal copyright law.

A videographer’s foreign copyright claims against Netflix over use of videos in its popular Tiger King series raised a federal question for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction because the foreign copyright laws asserted would likely need to be interpreted under federal copyright law, including the work-for-hire doctrine, and or choice of law provisions would direct the application of federal law, the federal district court in San Jose has ruled, in denying Netflix’s motion to remand the action to state court (Whyte Monkee Productions LLC v. Netflix, Inc., April 16, 2024, Pitts, P.).

Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC and its owner, Timothy Sepi (collectively, Whyte Monkee), claimed ownership of several cinematic works which they alleged were cut and incorporated into the reality series Tiger King by Netflix, Inc. (Netflix). Whyte Monkee brought suit against Netflix in the California state courts for violation of the copyright laws of several foreign nations. Netflix removed the action to federal court. Before the court was Whyte Monkee’s motion to remand, on the ground that the court lacked federal question jurisdiction and that Netflix was not entitled to removal under diversity jurisdiction because it was a forum defendant. Whyte Monkee also sued Netflix in Oklahoma federal court, asserting Netflix infringed its copyrights by using video clips in the Tiger King series. The district court dismissed the claims on the ground of fair use, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in part, instructing the district court on remand to reevaluate one of he fair use factors as to one clip.

Federal question. The copyright claims were asserted under foreign, not federal or state, law. The court considered first the choice of law analysis and found that the California choice of law procedure which it would have to apply would require comparison of foreign to federal law, examination of each jurisdiction’s interest in the dispute, and weighing the competing interests, all of which could be a substantial question. Additionally, based on Netflix’s proffer of the applicable foreign statutes, it appeared that the ownership of the claimed copyrights as between Sepi and his company would almost certainly have to be decided, in at least some part of the claims, by federal law including the work-for-hire doctrine. Accordingly, the court held that it had federal question jurisdiction over those claims which would require the application of federal law and supplemental jurisdiction over any other claims in the case.

Diversity. The court found that although Netflix was domiciled within the state and therefore not entitled to removal under diversity jurisdiction, the federal question issue was sufficient for the court to retain jurisdiction.

The court denied the motion for remand.

The Case is No. 5:23-cv-03438-PCP.

Attorneys: Ryan Andrew Hamilton (Hamilton Law LLC) for Whyte Monkee Productions LLC. James David Berkley (Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP) for Netflix, Inc.

Companies: Whyte Monkee Productions LLC; Netflix, Inc.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews