Sorry for the gap in posts.  I’ve been in the Pacific Northwest watching killer whales.  Although I’m still on vacation, I wanted to quickly answer a question by a reader in the North who wondered:

Why would a Website owner want to require a Website user to agree to a license in a contract regarding copyrighted material?

Isn’t statutory copyright protection enough?

Does a license provide a legal remedy in addition to copyright infringement?

Good questions.  A Website owner may want to require users to agree to a contract that includes a restricted content license because of litigation procedures.

If a Website user copied copyrighted material in violation of the copyright statute and in breach of the licensing terms of the Website’s on-line contract, the Website owner would have at least two causes of action in a lawsuit:  copyright infringement and breach of contract.

Why would a plaintiff want two causes of action in a lawsuit?

The elements of proof, required evidence, and damages are different for copyright infringement and breach of a specific contract.

For a breach of a contract:

  • It’s easy to sue for a breach of contract.
  • A contract can dictate where the litigation occurs.
  • By agreeing to a contract, a user can agree to submit to jurisdiction in a remote court where the Website owner resides.
  • A contract can also require attorneys’ fees for the prevailing party in a lawsuit for breach of contract.

In contrast, for litigation for copyright infringement:

  • A federal copyright registration is required before a plaintiff can file a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
  • Statutory damages and attorneys’ fees are only available if the copyright to the work was registered within 3 months of publication and before infringement.  Many companies don’t register their works in time and statutory remedies are not an option.

Although in the end you usually won’t get more total damages for multiple causes of action (and damages experts are expensive because the calculation can get complicated), multiple causes of action can help a Website owner win its case.


The information provided in this legal blog is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not submit questions or comments seeking legal advice or submit confidential information through this blog. By communicating through this blog, you understand and agree that the information will not be treated as confidential and the publisher has no duty to keep it confidential.

{ 0 comments }

Copyright Infringement, YouTube & the DMCA

by Jill Hubbard Bowman on June 28, 2010

Google won a huge victory last week when a federal judge decided that Google was not liable for copyright infringement perpetrated by its YouTube Users.

In 1996, Viacom, the owner of Paramount Pictures and MTV Networks, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google alleging that thousands of videos on YouTube violated its copyrights.

Google fought back asserting that as a service provider it was entitled to the safe harbor protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and therefore not liable for copyright violations of YouTube users.  Google asserted that it had acted expeditiously and removed allegedly infringing materials when notified of the specific material by the copyright owner as required by the DMCA.

Viacom asserted that Google was not entitled to the DMCA safe harbor because it knew that material infringing Viacom’s copyrights was posted on YouTube.

The critical issue was whether Google had met the DMCA’s safe harbor requirements:

Did Google’s general knowledge of possible infringement negate  protection?

Courts have been very clear regarding the necessity of strict compliance with the DMCA’s requirements.  For a service provider to qualify for safe harbor protection, the service provider must take a variety of actions including:

  • designating an agent with the Copyright Office;
  • providing and following a copyright infringement notification/take down procedure; and
  • a counter-notification procedure.

In general the DMCA states that “A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief . . .for infringement of copyright . .if the service provider

(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;”

The judge decided that the phrases above meant more than general knowledge of the prevalence of infringement.  They meant “specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items.”  In short, Google had a safe harbor.  The burden to identify and notify the service provider of alleged infringement is on the copyright owner.

The bottom line is that service providers don’t have to actively monitor their sites for infringing content.  They may presume user material is not infringing unless notified otherwise.  If they follow the DMCA guidelines and act promptly to take down material alleged to be infringing, they may have protection from claims of big damages.


The information provided in this legal blog is not intended as legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not submit questions or comments seeking legal advice or submit confidential information through this blog. By communicating through this blog, you understand and agree that the information will not be treated as confidential and the publisher has no duty to keep it confidential.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Who Owns the IP Rights to Custom Software?

June 23, 2010

Ownership of the intellectual property rights to custom software created by an independent contractor can be tricky.  Because custom software can be highly valuable and expensive, it’s important to understand IP ownership issues.
Over the last decade I’ve seen both businesses who paid for custom software and software developers  be surprised and outraged by ownership issues. [...]

Read the full article →

The Elements of Contract Formation

May 18, 2010

When I was in law school, I hated contract law.  My professor seemed primarily interested in discussing the history and philosophy behind the law.  I felt mired down in the complexity and didn’t understand why more time wasn’t spent talking about the basics.  I now realize that after teaching contract law for upteen years, my law [...]

Read the full article →

Saving Money in Patent Litigation: Case Management Strategies

May 13, 2010

I’ve litigated patent cases for over ten years and I’ve always been keenly interested in how clients manage their cases.  Some clients, even mega companies with billions, are very strict and closely monitor litigation costs.  Others don’t.
If you’re a small company facing patent litigation, it’s important to act like the former rather than the latter.  [...]

Read the full article →

Saving Money in Patent Litigation: The Best Litigation Team

May 11, 2010

In an ideal world, I would want to know the personality type, temperament, and action style of the attorneys working on my company’s patent case.
An important key to success in litigation is the core personality of the litigators.
Are they highly competitive?  Do they thrive on winning?  Do they love complex, difficult challenges?  Are they strategic, [...]

Read the full article →

Saving Money in Patent Litigation: Hiring the Best Lead Litigation Attorney

May 9, 2010

Whether you make the strategic decision to enforce your patents or your company has been sued for infringement, you will need to hire litigation attorneys.
As I discussed in my last post in this series, winning and cost effective litigation is really predicated on the personality, skill and experience of the individual attorneys and not the [...]

Read the full article →

Some VCs Don’t Think Software Patents Are Important

May 7, 2010

My old law school friend Jason Mendelson, the Managing Director of the VC fund the Foundry Group, takes issue with a recent claim that “76 percent of startup managers report that venture capital investors consider patents when making funding decisions.”
In his blog Mendelson’sMusings, Jason refutes this stat  and discusses how it has been misreported as [...]

Read the full article →

Saving Money in Patent Litigation: Hiring the Best Law Firm

May 6, 2010

Patent litigation is a high stakes game.  Potential damages can be astronomical and the cost of litigation alone can bankrupt a startup.
When you engage in patent litigation, whether as the plaintiff (the party suing) or as the defendant (the party being sued), you want to win.
To win, most companies want to hire the best law [...]

Read the full article →

Saving Money in Patent Litigation: Series Overview

May 4, 2010

Patent litigation is expensive—often horrifically expensive—with attorneys’ fees quickly escalating to millions of dollars, even in relatively small cases.  In some cases, plaintiffs may claim patent infringement damages in the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars.
It’s a high stakes game.  Patent litigation can break a company or conversely lead to phenomenal damages and [...]

Read the full article →