Kinsley v. Udemy, Inc.

Background

Harrison Snow Kinsley, identified in the opinion as a computer programming educator, sued Udemy, Inc. He alleged that two of his courses—Mastery Python 3 Basics Tutorial Series + SQLite with Python and OpenCV with Python for Image and Video Analysis – Hands On!—were uploaded to Udemy’s platform and infringed his copyrights. He also asserted state-law claims for misappropriation of the right of publicity, unfair competition and false advertising under California’s Unfair Competition Law, receipt of stolen property, unjust enrichment, unfair and unlawful business practices, aiding and abetting, accounting, and declaratory relief.

Udemy moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the admissible evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and no reasonable fact-finder could rule for the opposing party. Udemy argued that it was protected from monetary liability by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). It also argued that Kinsley’s non-copyright claims were preempted by federal copyright law or otherwise failed on the evidence.

Copyright claims and safe harbor

The court held that Udemy qualified as an online service provider covered by § 512(c). It found that Udemy had adopted and informed instructors about policies addressing repeat infringement, including a policy allowing it to ban instructors who presented a high risk of additional infringement. The court also found no evidence that Udemy interfered with standard technical measures used to identify or protect copyrighted works.

The court concluded that the record did not show that Udemy had actual or “red flag” knowledge of the alleged infringement before Kinsley’s complaints. Under the statute, actual knowledge means actual knowledge of the infringement, while “red flag” knowledge requires awareness of facts making the specific infringement objectively obvious to a reasonable person. The court found Kinsley’s statements about Udemy’s knowledge too conclusory to create a genuine factual dispute.

After receiving Kinsley’s complaint about the Mastery Python 3 course on January 13, 2018, Udemy removed the material on January 16, 2018. It removed the OpenCV material on the same day Kinsley complained, June 20, 2018. The court held that these responses were expeditious. It rejected Kinsley’s statement that the material remained available through March 2020 because he did not provide a sufficient showing that the statement was based on personal knowledge. The court also concluded that any dispute about when Udemy banned the instructors was immaterial because the allegedly infringing material was removed within days of the complaints.

The court further held that Udemy did not have the statutory “right and ability to control” the alleged infringement. That standard requires more than a general ability to locate infringing material and terminate users’ access; it requires substantial influence over users’ activities. The court found that instructors, not Udemy, uploaded the material, and that Udemy did not control their actions or have prior knowledge that the material infringed Kinsley’s copyrights. Because the court found no such control, it did not address whether Udemy received a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringement.

The court therefore held that Udemy satisfied the requirements for the § 512(c) safe harbor. The safe harbor protected Udemy from monetary liability for the copyright claims, including claims for contributory and vicarious infringement. The court also held that injunctive relief was moot because Udemy had already removed the material and banned the accounts of the instructors who posted it.

Non-copyright claims

The court held that Kinsley’s non-copyright claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. Copyright preemption applies when the subject matter falls within copyright law and the state-law rights asserted are equivalent to the exclusive rights provided by the Copyright Act, such as the rights to reproduce, adapt, and distribute a work.

The court found that Kinsley’s course materials and videos fell within copyright law’s subject matter. It also found that his other claims incorporated the same allegations as his copyright claim and were based on Udemy’s alleged reproduction, distribution, and sale of his copyrighted works. The court specifically concluded that the misappropriation claim, the Unfair Competition Law claims, and the stolen-property and unjust-enrichment claims did not assert rights qualitatively different from the copyright rights. It therefore ruled that the remaining non-copyright claims were preempted and did not reach Udemy’s alternative arguments concerning those claims.

Disposition

The court granted Udemy’s summary judgment motion. It held that Udemy was protected from Kinsley’s copyright claims by § 512(c)’s safe harbor and that Kinsley’s non-copyright claims were preempted under the Copyright Act. The court stated that judgment must be entered for Udemy against Kinsley.

The court also granted Udemy’s administrative motion to seal, finding that it was narrowly tailored. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 55 and 56. Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.