Anderson v. Seliger

Background

Erik Anderson filed a declaratory-relief action concerning links posted by users of the AwardsWatch.com forum to three photographs taken by the defendants. The opinion describes these “deeplinks,” also called “inline links,” as hyperlinks to photographs on another website. The photographs were not posted or maintained on the AwardsWatch server. Anderson alleged that he did not post the links, did not know about them until 2019, did not encourage them, and received no financial benefit from them. After receiving complaints, he had the posts removed.

Anderson sought declarations that posting or restoring deeplinks to the defendants’ photographs was not copyright infringement and that he was not legally liable without a voluntary act or direct financial benefit. He later transferred ownership of the forum, which moved to another web address. The opinion states that Anderson sought relief for past or existing links, not links that might be posted in the future.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court noted that the motion raised only a mootness argument under Rule 12(b)(1), not a failure-to-state-a-claim argument under Rule 12(b)(6). The defendants argued that the case had become moot because they granted the owners and operators of AwardsWatch.com irrevocable retroactive and future licenses covering the three photographs identified in the amended complaint. They also argued that Anderson lacked standing because he no longer owned or operated the forum. The defendants requested attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

Mootness

Mootness means that a dispute is no longer live or that the parties no longer have a legally recognizable interest in its outcome. The court explained that a defendant’s voluntary decision to stop the challenged conduct generally does not make a case moot unless it is absolutely clear that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to happen again. The party asserting mootness bears the burden of making that showing.

The court found the licenses insufficient. They were licenses rather than promises not to sue; they protected the owners and operators of AwardsWatch.com but did not protect forum users; and they covered only the three photographs identified in the amended complaint. The licenses therefore left Anderson and forum users exposed to possible disputes over links to other copyrighted photographs among the forum’s many posts. The court concluded that the licenses did not make it absolutely clear that another alleged infringement dispute could not arise.

Standing

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can likely remedy. The defendants argued that Anderson could not assert the rights of the forum’s current owners because he no longer owned the forum. The court rejected that argument, noting that Anderson said he sought to vindicate his own legal rights, not the new owner’s rights.

The court held that Anderson’s allegations of prior ownership and the defendants’ repeated accusations of copyright infringement were sufficient to establish standing to seek relief concerning existing deeplink posts. The court also relied on Anderson’s statement that the transfer was informal, without compensation, and did not include an agreement addressing liability for alleged infringement occurring during his ownership. The court concluded that Anderson remained potentially liable for those links and therefore had standing.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and denied their request for attorney’s fees. The order addressed mootness and standing; it did not decide whether the deeplinks constituted copyright infringement.