Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-00733
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Viral DRM v. Shubstorsky, Judge Corley ordered a standing response and licensing documents, and granted in part and denied in part Viral DRM’s sealing motion.
Viral DRM must provide a written explanation of its standing and file the correct licensing agreements. The order also determines which portions of Viral DRM’s licensing agreement may remain sealed. The opinion does not state a final ruling on the default-judgment motion or the underlying copyright claims.
What happened
Viral DRM, LLC sued Anton Shubstorsky for allegedly copying its copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploading versions to his YouTube channel. After Shubstorsky did not respond, the Clerk entered default, and Viral DRM asked for a default judgment.
The court questioned whether Viral DRM had standing, meaning the legal right to bring the copyright claims. The license Viral DRM submitted gave it agency and content-management powers, but the court said it did not clearly give Viral DRM the exclusive right to authorize others to reproduce, distribute, or display the works.
The court ordered Viral DRM to explain by January 6, 2025, how it had standing and to file the correct licensing agreements within seven days. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part Viral DRM’s request to seal the agreement, allowing some portions to remain sealed but requiring the title and the discussed first paragraph to remain public.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky · No. 3:24-cv-00733
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 9, 2024
Background
Viral DRM, LLC asserted copyright infringement claims against Anton Shubstorsky, alleging that he downloaded and copied Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploaded infringing versions to his YouTube channel, WAHR. The court described this as one of several related copyright actions.
Shubstorsky did not respond to the complaint. The Clerk entered default, and Viral DRM moved for default judgment. At the hearing on that motion, the court questioned Viral DRM’s standing—the legal ability to sue over the copyrights—and directed Viral DRM to provide a copy of its license with the copyright holders.
Standing Analysis
The Copyright Act allows the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright right to sue for infringement of that right. The exclusive rights listed in the Act include the rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, and authorize others to do those things. The court explained that an assignment or exclusive license can transfer a copyright right, while a nonexclusive license cannot confer standing to bring an infringement claim.
Viral DRM alleged that it was the exclusive licensee of the works and that it had registered them with the Copyright Office. The registration certificates, however, showed that five works were registered to Michael Brandon Clement and another work was registered to Michael Brandon Clement and Jonathan Petramala jointly. The agreement Viral DRM first submitted was between Viral DRM and Clement only. The court agreed to consider an agreement with Petramala filed in a related proceeding because the agreements were otherwise identical, but ordered Viral DRM to file the correct license or licenses for this action.
The agreement gave Viral DRM exclusive agency rights to manage and administer content, including rights to search for infringement, register copyrights, authorize attorneys to negotiate settlements, issue removal notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, file claims on behalf of the content creator, and display, store, transmit, and distribute the works as needed to perform the agreement.
The court held that managing and administering content is not one of the exclusive rights that establishes copyright ownership. It also concluded that the agreement’s rights to display, store, transmit, and distribute the works as needed to fulfill the agreement did not give Viral DRM the exclusive right to authorize third parties to reproduce, distribute, and display the copyrighted videos. The court therefore ordered Viral DRM to show cause—meaning to provide a written explanation—as to how it had standing to assert its copyright claims, including claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f), 1202(a), and 1202(b).
Sealing Ruling and Disposition
Viral DRM asked to file the agreement under seal, citing confidentiality and protection of its business assets and the videographers’ private information. The court found compelling reasons to seal portions of the agreement, but not the agreement’s title or paragraph 1, which were discussed in a publicly filed declaration.
The court ordered Viral DRM to file its written standing response by January 6, 2025, and to file the correct licensing agreement or agreements within seven days of the order. The court’s administrative motion to seal was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated in the order. The order disposed of Docket No. 39; it did not enter the requested default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.