Viral DRM LLC v. Lietucheva
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-04300
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Viral DRM v. Lietucheva, Judge Corley denied default judgment and dismissed the action because Viral DRM did not show it had standing.
Viral DRM LLC’s copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and copyright-management-information claims against Maryna Lietucheva were dismissed; the motion for default judgment was denied.
What happened
Viral DRM LLC sued Maryna Lietucheva, alleging that she copied its copyrighted videos and uploaded infringing versions to YouTube. After Lietucheva did not respond and the clerk entered her default, Viral DRM asked the court to enter default judgment.
The court questioned whether Viral DRM had standing—the legal ability to bring these claims. It found that the licensing agreement did not give Viral DRM the exclusive copyright rights needed to sue for infringement. The record also did not clearly establish who owned or licensed the works involved in Viral DRM’s claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the copyright-management-information provisions of federal law.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion for default judgment and dismissed the action because Viral DRM had not demonstrated standing. The court also denied leave to amend after finding that Viral DRM had already received opportunities to clarify its claims and evidence.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM LLC v. Lietucheva · No. 3:23-cv-04300
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
Viral DRM LLC asserted copyright-infringement and related claims against Maryna Lietucheva. It alleged that Lietucheva downloaded and copied Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and re-uploaded infringing versions to her YouTube channel, Extreme Weather & Natural Disasters. Lietucheva did not respond to the amended complaint, the clerk entered her default, and Viral DRM moved for default judgment.
At the default-judgment hearing, the court questioned whether Viral DRM had standing, meaning the legal authority to bring the claims. The court directed Viral DRM to provide its license agreements and later ordered it to explain why it had standing. Viral DRM submitted the same response used in several related cases, without citations to the record or tailoring the response to this case.
Copyright-infringement claim
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 court explained that an assignment or exclusive license can transfer a copyright right sufficient to establish standing, while a nonexclusive license cannot.
The copyright registrations attached to the amended complaint identified Michael Brandon Clement as the copyright claimant. Clement stated that he was a principal and owner of Viral DRM and that the works were exclusively licensed to Viral DRM under written agreements. Viral DRM eventually filed an agreement with Clement. That agreement granted Viral DRM exclusive agency rights to manage and administer content, search for infringement, register copyrights, authorize attorneys to negotiate settlements, issue takedown notices, file claims on behalf of the copyright owner, and display, store, transmit, and distribute the works as needed to perform the agreement. The agreement otherwise stated that the content creator retained copyright and ownership rights.
The court held that these enforcement and management rights were not the same as an exclusive right to authorize third parties to reproduce, distribute, and display the copyrighted videos. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the agreement therefore did not give Viral DRM standing to bring the copyright-infringement claim.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim
Viral DRM also alleged that Lietucheva violated § 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by submitting false counternotices in response to Viral DRM’s takedown notices. Section 512(f) allows a copyright owner or authorized licensee to seek damages for material misrepresentations made to an online service provider.
The court found the record unclear about who owned or was authorized to license the works. The registrations identified Clement as author and copyright claimant, while many takedown notices identified WXChasing LLC as the copyright owner. The record contained an agreement between Clement and Viral DRM but not an agreement between Clement and WXChasing. For another work, the materials suggested that Clement was acting for WXChasing regarding a work owned by “Pecos Hank,” but the record did not include an agreement between that owner and WXChasing. The amended complaint, agreements, declarations, and response to the court’s order also did not specifically identify the work and associated videographer for each claim. The court held that Viral DRM had not demonstrated standing under § 512(f).
Copyright-management-information claims
Viral DRM asserted claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1202 concerning removal or misrepresentation of copyright-management information, including watermarks identifying Live Storms Media as the owner of the works. The court found that the record did not clarify Live Storms Media’s relationship with Viral DRM, the videographers, or the works. For that reason, Viral DRM had not demonstrated standing to bring those claims either.
Disposition
The court denied Viral DRM’s motion for default judgment and dismissed the action because Viral DRM failed to demonstrate standing to bring the copyright-infringement and related claims. The court also denied leave to amend. It stated that Viral DRM had previously been allowed to amend and had received several opportunities to clarify its claims and supporting evidence, but each successive filing created more uncertainty. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 98 and 108.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.