Viral DRM, LLC v. Thanh
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-00731
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Viral DRM v. Thanh, Judge Corley questioned Viral DRM’s standing, ordered more licensing proof, and granted its sealing motion in part and denied it in part.
Viral DRM, LLC must respond to the standing order and file the correct licensing agreements, including any agreement with Brett Adair. The opinion does not decide the pending default-judgment motion or impose relief on Uong Sy Thanh.
What happened
In Viral DRM, LLC v. Uong Sy Thanh, Viral DRM accused Thanh of downloading and copying its copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploading them to the YouTube channel NA Weather. After Thanh did not respond, the Clerk entered default, and Viral DRM asked the court for a default judgment.
At the default-judgment hearing, the court questioned whether Viral DRM had the legal right to bring the copyright claims. The licensing agreement Viral DRM submitted did not match all of the copyright holders listed in the registrations, and the court also questioned whether the agreement gave Viral DRM an exclusive right needed to sue.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered Viral DRM to explain its standing by January 6, 2025, and to file the correct licensing agreements, including an agreement with Brett Adair, within seven days. The court also granted Viral DRM’s motion to seal in part and denied it in part.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM, LLC v. Thanh · No. 3:24-cv-00731
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 9, 2024
Background
Viral DRM, LLC sued Uong Sy Thanh for allegedly downloading and copying Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploading infringing versions to the YouTube channel NA Weather. After Thanh did not respond to the complaint, the Clerk entered default. Viral DRM then moved for default judgment.
At the hearing on that motion, the court raised a question about Viral DRM’s standing—the legal right to bring the copyright claims—and ordered Viral DRM to submit a copy of its license with the copyright holders.
Standing issue
The Copyright Act generally allows the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright right to sue for infringement of that right. The court explained that an assignment or exclusive license can transfer a copyright right for this purpose, while a nonexclusive license cannot confer standing. The court also noted that Viral DRM’s claims under other copyright-related provisions, including 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f), 1201, and 1202, have their own limits on who may sue.
Viral DRM alleged that it was the exclusive licensee of the works and had registered them with the Copyright Office. The registration certificates attached to the complaint showed that one work was registered to Michael Brandon Clement and Brett Adair jointly, and that another work was registered to Reed Trimmer. Viral DRM submitted an agreement with Ronald Brian Emfinger, but the court noted that Emfinger was listed as the author of the work claimed by Clement and Adair, not as the copyright claimant. The court also considered agreements with Clement and Trimmer that Viral DRM had filed in related actions, but ordered Viral DRM to file the correct licenses in this action.
The court stated that a license with Clement alone was insufficient for a copyright held jointly by Clement and Adair and that Viral DRM also needed a license with Adair. The court further examined the agreements’ language. They gave Viral DRM exclusive agency rights to manage and administer content and to display, store, transmit, and distribute works as needed to perform the agreement. The court concluded that these provisions did not give Viral DRM the exclusive right to authorize others to reproduce, distribute, and display the videos. The court therefore ordered Viral DRM to show how it had standing to bring the copyright claims, including its claims under §§ 512(f) and 1202(a) and (b). The opinion did not make a final ruling that Viral DRM lacked standing; it ordered Viral DRM to provide an explanation and additional licensing agreements.
Sealing ruling and deadlines
The court granted in part and denied in part Viral DRM’s administrative motion to seal. The court found compelling reasons to seal portions of the licensing agreement but ruled that the agreement’s title and paragraph 1 should not be sealed because they were discussed in a publicly filed declaration.
The court ordered Viral DRM to file a written response to the standing order by January 6, 2025, and to file the correct licensing agreements, including any agreement with Adair, within seven days of the order. The order disposed of docket entry 33.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.