Stebbins v. Rebolo

Background

The court had stayed this case while a related case was pending. After the related case was dismissed, the court lifted the stay. Because David A. Stebbins was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of a case filed without paying the fee if it fails to state a claim for relief or is frivolous.

Stebbins asserted copyright-infringement claims involving several livestream videos and ten two-dimensional images.

Court’s analysis

For the April 10, 2021 livestream, the court dismissed the copyright claims with prejudice. It relied on its ruling in the related case that the livestream lacked the creativity and human authorship required for copyright protection because the recording occurred without Stebbins’s knowledge.

For the ten two-dimensional images, the court noted that the Copyright Office had rejected registration because the images consisted of basic geometric shapes. The complaint described a blue honeycomb background made of hexagons arranged in a honeycomb pattern with a gradient color scheme. The court concluded that the selection and arrangement did not contain enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection and dismissed the claims based on those images.

For the other livestream videos, Stebbins had registered the works, which ordinarily provides an initial presumption that a copyright is valid. The court found that evidence from the related case overcame that presumption because Stebbins had not disclosed the true nature and circumstances of the April 10, 2021 livestream in his registration application. The court further found that Stebbins did not describe the other livestreams or explain how they met copyright-protection requirements such as creativity or originality. His allegations of copying were also vague and conclusory. The court therefore found that he had not stated viable infringement claims concerning those videos.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend. It reasoned that Stebbins had already pursued similar claims in the related case, had amended the complaint once in this case, and had proposed another amended complaint that added no facts curing the defects. The court also found amendment would be futile and stated that Stebbins’s effort to pursue claims to silence online criticism appeared to show bad faith and abuse of the court system.

The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions as moot, and closed the file. It warned that continued frivolous or meritless lawsuits could result in sanctions, a filing bar requiring prior approval, or a designation as a vexatious litigant.