Viral DRM LLC v. Lietucheva

Background

Viral DRM LLC brought copyright-related claims against Maryna Lietucheva, alleging that she downloaded and copied Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploaded infringing versions to her YouTube channel, Extreme Weather & Natural Disasters. After Lietucheva did not respond to the amended complaint, the Clerk entered default. Viral DRM then moved for default judgment.

At the hearing on that motion, the court raised whether Viral DRM had standing—the legal ability to bring the claims. The court directed Viral DRM to submit a license from the copyright holders. The amended complaint alleged that Viral DRM was the exclusive licensee and had registered the works, but the attached registration certificates identified Michael Brandon Clement as the registered owner. Viral DRM submitted an agreement between Viral DRM and Reed Trimmer. The court noted that the registrations for the works were held by Clement, not Trimmer. Because Viral DRM had filed an agreement with Clement in related actions and the agreements were otherwise identical, the court considered the submitted agreement but ordered Viral DRM to file the correct license for this action within seven days.

Standing Analysis

Under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b), a legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright right may sue for infringement of that right. The Copyright Act identifies exclusive rights such as reproducing a work, preparing derivative works, distributing copies, publicly performing or displaying the work, and authorizing others to do those things. An assignment or exclusive license can transfer a qualifying copyright interest, but a nonexclusive license cannot confer standing to sue for infringement.

The agreement gave Viral DRM exclusive agency rights to manage and administer content, including authority to search for infringements, register copyrights, authorize attorneys to negotiate settlements, issue takedown notices, and file claims on behalf of the copyright owner. It also granted rights to display, store, transmit, and distribute works as needed to fulfill the agreement. The court explained that these provisions did not give Viral DRM the exclusive ownership right to authorize third parties to reproduce, distribute, and display the copyrighted videos. The court therefore ordered Viral DRM to show cause—provide a written explanation—as to how it had standing to bring the copyright claims, including claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f) and 1202(a) and (b).

Sealing Ruling

Viral DRM asked to file the agreement under seal, asserting that its agreements with videographers were confidential and included private information. The court found compelling reasons to seal portions of the agreement, but not its title or paragraph 1, which were discussed in a publicly filed declaration. The court’s final disposition states that Viral DRM’s administrative motion to seal was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The order disposes of that sealing motion; the text provided does not state a final ruling on Viral DRM’s motion for default judgment.