Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-00733
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Viral DRM v. Shubstorsky: Judge Corley denied default judgment and dismissed the action because Viral DRM lacked standing.
Viral DRM, LLC’s copyright-infringement and related claims against Anton Shubstorsky were dismissed for lack of standing; the court denied Viral DRM’s motion for default judgment and leave to amend.
What happened
Viral DRM, LLC sued Anton Shubstorsky, alleging he copied copyrighted media from YouTube and re-uploaded it to his channel. After Shubstorsky did not respond, the clerk entered default, and Viral DRM sought a default judgment.
The court questioned whether Viral DRM had the legal right to bring the claims. The licensing agreements gave Viral DRM agency and management rights, but did not give it the exclusive right to authorize copying, distribution, or display. The record also did not clearly identify which parties owned or licensed each work involved in the other claims.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion for default judgment, dismissed the action for lack of standing, and denied Viral DRM leave to amend. The court did not award judgment on Viral DRM’s claims.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky · No. 3:24-cv-00733
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
Viral DRM, LLC alleged that Anton Shubstorsky downloaded and copied Viral DRM’s copyrighted materials from YouTube and uploaded infringing versions to his YouTube channel, WAHR. Viral DRM asserted copyright-infringement claims and related claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Copyright Act’s provisions concerning copyright-management information.
Shubstorsky did not respond to the complaint. The clerk entered default, and Viral DRM moved for default judgment. At the hearing, the court questioned whether Viral DRM had standing—the legal right to bring the claims—and ordered Viral DRM to provide its licenses with the copyright holders. The court later ordered Viral DRM to explain why it had standing.
Copyright-infringement standing
Section 501(b) of the Copyright Act permits the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive copyright right to sue for infringement of that particular right. The court explained that an assignment or exclusive license can transfer a copyright interest sufficient for standing, while a nonexclusive license cannot.
The copyright registrations identified Michael Brandon Clement as the owner of five works and identified Michael Brandon Clement and Jonathan Petramala jointly for another work. Viral DRM submitted agreements with Clement and Petramala. Those agreements granted Viral DRM “exclusive agency rights” to manage and administer the works, search for infringement, register copyrights, authorize attorneys to negotiate settlements, issue takedown notices, and file claims on behalf of the content creator. The agreements also allowed Viral DRM to display, store, transmit, and distribute the works as needed to fulfill the agreements. The content creators otherwise retained their copyright and ownership rights.
The court held that these agreements did not give Viral DRM the exclusive right to authorize third parties to reproduce, distribute, and display the copyrighted videos. Rights to enforce a copyright are not the same as owning an exclusive right under Section 106. The court therefore concluded that Viral DRM lacked standing to bring the copyright-infringement claim under Section 501(b).
DMCA counternotice claim
Viral DRM also alleged that Shubstorsky submitted false counternotices in violation of DMCA Section 512(f). That provision permits the copyright owner or an authorized licensee to seek damages for material misrepresentations made to an online service provider.
The court found the record confusing. The registrations identified Clement, or Clement and Petramala, as copyright claimants, while some takedown notices identified WXChasing LLC as the copyright owner. The record did not include a license agreement between Reed Timmer and WXChasing, although Timmer submitted a declaration stating that he had an agreement with Viral DRM. The filings also did not specifically identify which work or videographer was connected to each claim. The court further found that the relationships among Viral DRM, WXChasing, Live Storms Media, the videographers, and the works were unclear. Viral DRM therefore failed to demonstrate standing under Section 512(f).
Copyright-management-information claims
Viral DRM alleged that copyright-management-information watermarks identified the works as the property of Live Storms Media and asserted claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1202. The court found that Viral DRM had not demonstrated standing to bring claims concerning removal of Live Storms Media’s watermark because the record did not clarify Live Storms Media’s relationship with Viral DRM, the videographers, or the works.
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 noted that Viral DRM had previously received permission to amend and had been given several opportunities to clarify its claims and supporting evidence, but each successive filing continued to leave the record unclear. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 31.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.