Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.

Background

Harold Davis, a digital artist and professional photographer, sued Pinterest, Inc. Davis alleged that Pinterest copied, posted, and distributed several of his copyrighted photographs. According to the allegations, Pinterest allowed users to copy, post, download, crop, alter, and share images on the platform, and did not screen for copyright notices or other indications that images were protected. Davis asserted direct copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement. The motion addressed only Count II, the contributory infringement claim.

Davis filed an amended complaint after Pinterest moved to dismiss the contributory infringement claim in the earlier complaint. The amended complaint added 31 allegedly infringed photographs, but its substantive allegations remained largely the same. In response to Pinterest’s renewed motion, Davis did not address the motion’s substance and instead requested permission to amend based on newly learned facts.

Legal Standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but it does not accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

Under the cited Ninth Circuit standards, a contributory copyright claim requires allegations that third parties directly infringed the copyright. The plaintiff must also allege that the defendant knew about another person’s infringement and either materially contributed to it or induced it. In an online setting, material contribution requires actual knowledge of specific infringing material, knowledge that simple measures could prevent further harm, and continued access to the material. Inducement requires clear expression or other affirmative steps showing an object of promoting copyright infringement.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Davis alleged only that Pinterest itself infringed his copyrights. He did not identify facts showing direct infringement by third parties. The court also found that Davis did not allege Pinterest’s actual knowledge of specific third-party infringement, what simple measures Pinterest should have taken to prevent that infringement, or what clear expression or affirmative steps Pinterest took to induce or foster infringement.

The court also treated Davis’s failure to oppose the motion substantively as an acknowledgment that the contributory infringement claim should be dismissed. Based both on that response and on the deficiencies in the amended complaint, the court granted Pinterest’s motion to dismiss Count II.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted leave to amend because it could not determine at that stage that amendment would be futile, and because the case schedule had not yet been set, the court could not determine that Pinterest would be prejudiced. The court therefore granted Pinterest’s motion to dismiss Count II of Davis’s amended complaint with leave to amend. Davis was permitted to file another amended complaint by August 14, 2020, consistent with his obligations under Rule 11, but he could not add defendants or new claims. The court also set a telephonic case-management conference for August 25, 2020.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.