Viral DRM LLC v. Prokopenko

Background

Viral DRM LLC brought copyright-related claims against Yurii Prokopenko. It alleged that Prokopenko downloaded and copied Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploaded infringing versions to his YouTube channels, Latest Weather and Tough Weather. The opinion states that this was one of several related copyright infringement actions.

Prokopenko 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 whether Viral DRM had standing—the legal ability to bring the claims—and directed Viral DRM to provide a copy of its license agreement with the copyright holders.

Standing issue

Section 501(b) of the Copyright Act permits the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright right to sue for infringement of that right. The opinion explains that an assignment or exclusive license can transfer a copyright right, while a nonexclusive license does not confer standing to bring an infringement claim.

The copyright registration attached to the complaint identified Maxwell Olson as the registered owner of the work at issue. Viral DRM submitted an “Exclusive Copyright Management Agreement” with Olson. Under that agreement, Olson granted Viral DRM exclusive agency rights to manage and administer the content, search for infringements, register copyrights, authorize attorneys to negotiate settlements, issue removal notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and file claims to enforce the copyrights. The agreement also granted rights to display, store, transmit, and distribute the works as needed to fulfill the agreement. Olson retained the copyright and ownership rights.

The court compared this agreement with agreements discussed in Ninth Circuit precedent. It concluded that managing and administering content are not among the exclusive rights listed in the Copyright Act. The court also concluded that giving Viral DRM rights needed to enforce the copyright was different from giving it the exclusive right to authorize third parties to reproduce, distribute, and display the copyrighted videos. Unlike the agreement in the precedent discussed by the court, Viral DRM’s agreement did not give it that exclusive authorization right.

The court therefore ordered Viral DRM to show cause—provide an explanation—as to how it had standing to bring the copyright infringement claims, including claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f), 1202(a), and 1202(b). Viral DRM was ordered to file a written response by January 6, 2025. The opinion does not state a final ruling on Viral DRM’s motion for default judgment.

Sealing request and disposition

Viral DRM asked to file the license agreement under seal, citing confidentiality and the protection of its assets, agreement terms, and the videographer’s private information. The court stated that court records are presumptively public and that a party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive motion must show compelling reasons.

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 granted in part and denied in part Viral DRM’s administrative motion to seal. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 35.