White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Background

Jordan White, a rap artist who performs as G-Baby and GVVAAN, sued UMG Recordings, Inc. and Jordan Carter under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). That provision can impose liability when a person knowingly makes a material false statement that content is infringing, causing an online service provider to remove or disable access to it.

In 2017, White paid producer Jordan Jenks $250 for a non-exclusive license to use an instrumental track called the “Beat.” White used the Beat in a sound recording called “Oi!” and posted links to its music video on several online platforms, including Twitter. In 2018, Carter performed vocals on “Right Now,” which also used the Beat, and UMG owned the copyright in that sound recording.

Osaze Olumhense, then a UMG content protection specialist, found two Twitter posts involving “Oi!” while searching for material that might infringe UMG copyrights. After comparing “Oi!” and “Right Now,” he concluded—incorrectly, as the parties agreed—that “Oi!” infringed UMG’s copyright. He recorded the posts for referral to the Recording Industry Association of America, which asked Twitter to remove them. Twitter did so.

White conceded that Olumhense did not know about White’s license to use the Beat. White nevertheless argued that Carter and other people associated with UMG knew about the license and that Carter had enlisted UMG to remove White’s music video. White also argued that UMG should have exercised greater care before sending the takedown information.

Procedural History and Motions

The court previously allowed White to file a second amended complaint asserting DMCA claims against UMG and Carter. It found that White had adequately alleged that UMG knowingly misrepresented that “Oi!” infringed its copyrights and that Carter conspired with UMG to send the notices. The court had dismissed claims involving Jenks in connection with that amendment.

UMG and Carter then moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. White moved to file a supplemental letter concerning the motion, and the defendants moved for oral argument.

DMCA Claim Against UMG

The court explained that a copyright holder is not liable merely because it mistakenly believes that material infringes its copyright. Section 512(f) requires proof that the defendant actually knew it was making a factual misrepresentation. Negligence or a failure to investigate carefully is not enough.

The court held that the record contradicted White’s central allegation against UMG. Although White identified people who allegedly knew about his license, there was no evidence that this information was communicated to Olumhense, whom the record identified as the only UMG employee involved in deciding to send the takedown information. The court also rejected White’s argument that the knowledge of another employee should be attributed to Olumhense, noting that White cited no supporting case law.

The court further found that White offered only speculation to challenge Olumhense’s explanation of how he located the Twitter posts. Disputes about whether UMG violated internal guidelines or incorrectly claimed ownership of other elements of White’s song did not show that Olumhense knew, when he acted, that the takedown notices were false. The court therefore granted summary judgment to UMG on the DMCA claim.

DMCA Claim Against Carter

The court also granted summary judgment to Carter. Even if Carter knew about and disliked White’s license to use the Beat, White did not present non-speculative evidence that Carter participated in the takedown notices. The record showed that Olumhense never communicated or met with Carter, and Carter testified that he was not involved with the notices.

Declaratory Judgment Claim

White also sought a declaration that he had not infringed the defendants’ rights through his distribution and use of “Oi!” and that he had the right to display, distribute, and perform it. The defendants did not currently contend that White had infringed their rights and did not currently dispute his right to use “Oi!” in those ways.

The court concluded that any declaration would concern only past conduct rather than an ongoing legal dispute. It declined to exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief and dismissed White’s declaratory-judgment claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment on White’s DMCA claim was granted. White’s declaratory-judgment claim was dismissed without prejudice. The court granted White’s motion to file a supplemental letter, denied the defendants’ motion for oral argument, directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and stated that Judge Wang would decide the defendants’ separate sanctions motions by another order.