A New York Federal Court Order granted summary judgment in favor of Google, and its subsidiary YouTube, demonstrating the potency of the “safe harbor” protection given to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA"). The Order entered last Wednesday dismissing all copyright infringement claims brought by Viacom against Google and YouTube showed the importance of complying with the requirements of the DMCA to receive the protection it affords.
Viacom claimed that tens of thousands of videos it owned were unlawfully uploaded to YouTube, resulting in hundreds of millions of views and $1 billion in damages. Google and YouTube invoked the DMCA’s §512(c) “safe harbor” protection. Viacom argued that Google and YouTube could not be protected by the statutory “safe harbor” provision because of the widespread and extensive appearance of videos owned by Viacom on YouTube’s site.
Viacom asserted that: (i) YouTube skyrocketed to Internet fame because of its reputation as a place to go to find virtually any song or video in existence; (ii) YouTube profited from advertisements on its site as a result of every video viewed; and (iii) YouTube is more than a simple storage site because it actively recommends, features and sorts through the vast amount of content on its website.
Accepting these allegations as true for the purposes of the motion, the Court found that YouTube was immune from liability because it maintained a “takedown policy” which complied with all of the requirements of the DMCA. Referring to Congress’ intent behind the DMCA to ensure “that the efficiency of the Internet will continue to improve and that the variety and quality of services on the Internet will continue to expand” the Court ruled that YouTube complied with the safe harbor provisions.
To enjoy the protections of the DMCA’s safe harbor, any website that allows users to post comments or materials, including on blogs and bulletin boards, must do the following: (i) identify an agent to receive complaints of infringement and register that agent with the Copyright Office; (ii) publish on the website the procedures that copyright owners must follow to arrange for the take down of infringing content; (iii) follow a takedown procedure that complies with the DMCA; and (iv) establish a policy and procedures for preventing repeat infringers from posting content on the website.
The protection afforded by the DMCA may be stripped away if a website owner fails to comply with these procedures.
If you have any questions regarding complying with the DMCA, do not hesitate to contact the Intellectual Property Group at Baker Hostetler. The entire case can be read here. Additional information can be obtained by contacting any member of our Intellectual Property Team. We hope you find this information helpful.
Subscribe to Baker Hostetler’s Intellectual Property News
Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the Firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience. © 2010 Baker & Hostetler LLP