Harrington III v. Pinterest, Inc.

Background

Blaine Harrington III, a professional travel photographer and sole copyright owner of his photographic works, alleged that his images contained copyright-management information, including descriptions, creator information, copyright notices, credit lines, and other metadata. He alleged that Pinterest removed or altered this information when users uploaded images, renamed the image files, and displayed the images on Pinterest and through related services.

Harrington’s first amended complaint asserted direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and a claim under section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Pinterest moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim, to dismiss Count II for contributory copyright infringement and Count III for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Count II: Contributory copyright infringement

The court explained that a contributory-infringement claim requires alleged direct infringement by third parties, the defendant’s knowledge of that infringement, and either material contribution to or inducement of the infringement. For an online service operator, the relevant knowledge generally must concern specific infringing material, not merely the general possibility that users may infringe copyrights.

Harrington identified two examples of his photographs appearing on Pinterest, but the court found that he did not allege Pinterest knew or had reason to know that those photographs were on Pinterest or that they were infringing. He also did not allege that he had notified Pinterest about those examples or other infringement of his works. General complaints from other photographers and allegations that Pinterest knew its services were used for infringement were insufficient.

The court also rejected Harrington’s alternative argument based on willful blindness. That theory required allegations that Pinterest subjectively believed infringement of Harrington’s works was likely and deliberately avoided learning about it. The court found those allegations missing. It therefore dismissed Count II with leave to amend and did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments about whether Pinterest materially contributed to or induced infringement.

Count III: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Section 1202(b) prohibits, among other things, intentionally removing or altering copyright-management information when the defendant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the action will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal copyright infringement. The court stated that a plaintiff must allege more than the general possibility that removing metadata could encourage infringement. The complaint must include specific allegations showing how identifiable infringements would be affected, such as a past pattern of conduct or established method of operation likely to cause future infringement.

For purposes of the motion, Pinterest assumed that Harrington adequately alleged the removal of information covered by the statute. Even so, the court found that Harrington did not allege that he actually used the metadata to prevent or detect infringement, or that Pinterest’s actions induced, enabled, facilitated, or concealed a particular infringement or a recurring pattern of infringement. His allegations that removing the information made his works harder to locate and required more costly searches were not enough. The court concluded that Count III was not plausibly pleaded under Rule 12(b)(6).

Disposition

The court granted Pinterest’s motion to dismiss Counts II and III of the first amended complaint. Although Harrington had already amended once, the court granted him one last opportunity to amend. The opinion states that an amended complaint could be filed and served no later than a date written as “September __, 2021.”