“Be fruitful and multiply . . . but not in those words”: How much good faith is required when giving birth to a DMCA takedown notice?

by Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact

blog_image_8.5x11Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides copyright owners with the ability to demand that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) remove unauthorized copies from the internet.  This can be a powerful tool. Risk-averse ISPs, unwilling to expose themselves to liability for copyright infringement, often comply with such notices without regard for their merit. Thus, even when a takedown notice is patently frivolous, the accused copyright infringer is often faced with a choice between curtailing her own speech or having her website shut down by an overcautious ISP.

Is there an effective way to prevent frivolous takedown notices? Section 512(c)(3)(v) requires that a takedown notice include: “a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief” that infringement has occurred. But is the recitation of this statement alone a sufficient check against improper accusations? Judge Richard Stearns  of the District of Massachusetts will hear oral arguments next month in a matter regarding precisely these issues.

“This One’s For You, Dr. Amy”

Dr. Amy Tuteur and Gina Crosley-Corcoran are on opposite sides of an on-line debate over whether it is safe to give birth to your child at home without a doctor. Crosley-Corcoran, a “doula” and author of the Feminist Breeder website (and, as it happens, former bass player for the band Veruca Salt ), generally supports home birth. Dr. Tuteur, an obstetrician and author of the Skeptical OB website, generally opposes it.  Dr. Tuteur accuses Crosley-Corcoran of having insufficient experience and advocating potentially unsafe methods. Crosley-Corcoran accuses Dr. Tuteur of being a “terrorist” and “niche bully” who allegedly publishes heartless told-you-so attacks against women whose home births went wrong (e.g., “Yes, it is your fault that your baby died at homebirth”).

In December 2012, Dr. Tuteur posted an article critical of Crosley-Corcoran’s position.  Crosley-Corcoran responded with a post on the Feminist Breeder, which concluded with the statement: “I don’t want to leave you without something you can take back to you blog and obsess over, so here’s a picture of me . . .”  Accompanying this text was the above picture of Crosley-Corcoran, offering the single-finger salute that Woody Allen once paraphrased as “be fruitful and multiply.”  The caption read: “This one’s for you, Dr. Amy.

Dr. Tuteur, apparently wishing to get in the last word, copied the photo from the Feminist Breeder and reprinted it on the Skeptical OB, along with additional commentary.

Upon seeing her photo republished, Crosley-Corcoran gleefully announced to her readers that Dr. Tutueur had stolen the picture and “now owes me $750 (or $30,000, her choice).” Crosley-Corcoran hired an attorney and began sending takedown notices to Dr. Tuteur’s ISPs, alleging copyright infringement. Crosley-Corcoran’s later blog posts allegedly indicate that she was more interested in silencing Dr. Tuteur’s speech than in enforcing a legitimate copyright claim.  Crosley-Corcoran’s counsel allegedly admitted as much in a subsequent phone call.

Now, it’s pretty clear to anyone paying attention that Dr. Tuteur would probably have a slam dunk fair use defense if a copyright action were brought, and also a healthy implied license defense (after all, Crosley-Corcoran practically dared Dr. Tuteur to republish the photo on her blog).  However, Dr. Tuteur’s  overcautious ISPs (one of which was inaptly named “DaringHost”) weren’t interested in discussing legal theory and threatened to discontinue service unless she took down the photo.  So she took it down.

Dr. Amy Sues

In January 2013, Dr. Tuteur brought suit, alleging that Crosley-Corcoran violated Section 512(f), which provides that the copyright owner is liable if, in a takedown notice, she “knowingly materially misrepresents [] that material or activity is infringing.”  According to Dr. Tuteur, Crosley-Corcoran did not have a good faith belief that infringement had occurred (as required by Section 512(c)(3)(v)), and she actually knew or should have known that Dr. Tuteur had a “fair use” defense.

Crosley-Corcoran, a resident of Illinois, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). But the Court had other ideas.  Rather than dive into a potentially complex jurisdictional issue, Judge Stearns made a beeline for the merits. The Court agreed with Dr. Tuteur that her republication of the photograph was most likely a fair use.  However, as the Court saw it, there could be no claim under Section 512(f) because Crosley-Corcoran (in her takedown notices) claimed to have had a subjective good faith belief that her copyright was being infringed. Judge Stearns ordered Dr. Tuteur to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed on the merits.

The Positions of the Parties

The parties proceeded to brief the issue, in which briefing they were joined by amici the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Harvard’s Digital Media Law Project (DMLP) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).  At the heart of the debate is whether Section  512(f) provides a meaningful remedy for the victims of improper takedown notices.

Dr. Tuteur cites to Ninth Circuit case law and argues that, in order to make out a claim under Section  512(f), she need only allege that Crosley-Corcoran made an incorrect claim of infringement (incorrect because it was a fair use) and that she knew or should have known that the claim was incorrect. If a Section  512(f) claim could be defeated merely by the copyright owner’s rote recitation of subjective good faith, Dr. Tuteur argues, victims of improper takedown notices would in effect have no remedy whatsoever. The practical implications of Dr. Tuteur’s position could be that a copyright holder has an affirmative duty to consider whether there is a fair use defense or other defenses before issuing a takedown notice.  Amici EFF and DMLP, citing the legislative history of Section  512, support Dr. Tuteur’s position, and argue that relatively broader availability of the Section  512(f) remedy is necessary promote internet users’ “legitimate interests in not having material removed without recourse.”

Crosley-Corcoran, citing to a different body of Ninth Circuit case law, argues that the standard of “good faith” in issuing takedown notices is purely subjective and, since she attested to her own good faith and consulted with an attorney, she is essentially immune from suit. Moreover, she argues that there is no duty to conduct a “pre-takedown investigation” to consider potential defenses, and that any such obligation would be contrary to the DMCA’s intent to provide a “rapid response” to copyright infringement.  The MPAA’s brief  is styled as an amicus  “in support of neither party” (probably to distance itself from some of the defendant’s less civil pronouncements), but it basically supports Crosley-Corcoran’s position.  The MPAA warns that the adoption of  Dr. Tuteur’s position by the Court would make anti-piracy initiatives more difficult and costly.

The outcome could be significant for copyright owners and web content creators, at least within the First Circuit.  On the one hand, we don’t want it to be too easy for persons of ill will to remove speech they don’t like from the internet.  On the other hand, we don’t want copyright owners who issue legitimate takedown notices to be subject to reflexive retaliatory law suits under Section  512(f).  Oral arguments are scheduled for July 1, 2013. The DMLP has created a helpful website with most of the key documents and related links.

 

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.