Stebbins v. Polano

Background

David A. Stebbins, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he posts original videos on YouTube and Twitch under the alias Acerthorn. He alleged that Karl Polano, who uses the alias SofiannP, harassed him online, posted personal information about him, and sent messages to his followers.

Stebbins alleged that he accidentally broadcast a roughly two-hour video on Twitch on April 10, 2021. Afterward, he registered a copyright in the video and posted it on YouTube with access limited to followers who paid $20 per month. Stebbins alleged that Polano later posted a 50-second YouTube video containing 43 seconds copied from the Twitch video. Polano described the video as a parody and asserted that the use was fair use. YouTube removed the video after Stebbins submitted a takedown notice, and Polano submitted a counter-notice stating that the video was fair use.

Stebbins asserted copyright-infringement claims, a claim for knowing misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)(2), and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also moved for appointment of counsel.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Stebbins had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before service. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must dismiss a complaint at that stage if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving the defendant fair notice of each claim and the facts supporting it.

Copyright Allegations

The court explained that a copyright-infringement claim requires plausible allegations that the plaintiff owns a valid copyright and that the defendant copied and unlawfully appropriated the work. The court found Stebbins’s allegations adequate at the screening stage. It concluded that he plausibly alleged ownership, direct copying based on Polano’s statement that the video was a parody of Stebbins’s video, and unlawful appropriation based on the copied clip and the allegedly distinctive sounds.

The court noted that fair use is an affirmative defense and ordinarily involves facts considered later in the case. It concluded that Stebbins did not need to plead facts disproving fair use for the copyright allegations to survive screening.

Section 512(f)(2) Claim

Section 512(f)(2) concerns material misrepresentations in a counter-notice submitted after online material has been removed. The court stated that Stebbins needed to plausibly allege that Polano knowingly and materially misrepresented that the removal was based on mistake or misidentification, that the service provider relied on the misrepresentation, and that Stebbins was injured.

The court found the allegations insufficient under Rule 8 because they did not plausibly show that Polano knowingly made a misrepresentation. Although Stebbins alleged that Polano’s fair-use statement was false and frivolous and that Polano’s harassment suggested an intent to harass rather than parody, the court concluded that the allegations more plausibly suggested Polano believed his use was fair use and that the belief might have been reasonable.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court required allegations showing extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause, or recklessly disregarding the probability of causing, emotional distress; severe or extreme emotional distress; and actual and proximate causation.

The court found that Stebbins did not clearly identify which conduct supported this claim. It also concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing severe or extreme emotional distress caused by Polano’s use of the video or earlier online harassment, apart from possible financial losses connected to Polano’s competing video.

Leave to Amend and Appointment of Counsel

The court held that the section 512(f)(2) and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims did not comply with Rule 8 and gave Stebbins leave to amend them. The court instructed him to use separate numbered paragraphs, state each claim separately, identify the facts supporting each claim, and include all defendants, claims, and factual allegations in one complete amended complaint. The court set July 30, 2021, as the filing deadline for any amended complaint and warned that failure to follow the rules or the order could result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.

The court also denied Stebbins’s motion to appoint counsel, finding that the case did not merit free legal representation under Northern District of California General Order 25.