Schneider v. YouTube, LLC

Background

Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, and AST Publishing sued YouTube, LLC and Google. The plaintiffs alleged that YouTube and Google facilitate copyright infringement through a two-tiered enforcement system. According to the amended complaint, YouTube gives certain powerful copyright owners access to Content ID, a tool that can block uploads, monetize infringement, and track viewership of infringing works. The plaintiffs alleged that ordinary copyright owners do not receive access to Content ID, making it difficult for them to police their copyrights.

The plaintiffs also asserted claims concerning YouTube’s alleged removal of copyright-management information, or CMI, from their works under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). That provision addresses intentionally removing or altering CMI while knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know, that the conduct will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal copyright infringement.

YouTube’s Motion

YouTube moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. YouTube argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately identified the allegedly infringed works, had not sufficiently pleaded ownership of some works, had not met the Copyright Act’s registration requirement for certain works, and had not plausibly alleged the required mental state for the CMI claim. YouTube also raised concerns about potential remedies.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that a copyright-infringement claim requires allegations that the plaintiff owns the allegedly infringed material and that the defendant violated one of the exclusive rights provided by the Copyright Act. The amended complaint identified works allegedly owned by each plaintiff and alleged that YouTube infringed those works by displaying infringing videos. The court found those allegations sufficient to provide fair notice.

The court rejected YouTube’s argument that references to additional works made the claims unidentified. It concluded that the complaint specifically identified allegedly infringed works owned by each plaintiff. The court also rejected the argument that the complaint faced a heightened pleading standard, explaining that the allegations met Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s requirement to provide fair notice.

As to ownership, the court declined to consider Copyright Office records offered by YouTube because those materials were outside the amended complaint and this was a motion to dismiss. The court also found that the complaint plausibly alleged that Uniglobe and AST Publishing owned foreign works and that those works were exempt from the Copyright Act’s registration requirements.

The court held that Schneider’s additional works satisfied the registration requirement because the works identified in the original complaint had been registered, and the additional works in the amended complaint had been registered before the amended complaint was filed. The court therefore did not need to decide whether an amended complaint can cure a failure to register before the original complaint was filed.

For the CMI claim, the court applied the requirement that the defendant know, or have a reasonable basis to know, that its conduct will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement. The court found the allegations plausible because the plaintiffs alleged that audio and video files routinely contain CMI, that CMI protects copyright holders, and that distributing works without CMI on YouTube had induced, enabled, facilitated, and concealed infringement. Those allegations supported an inference that YouTube removed CMI with knowledge that doing so carried a substantial risk of inducing infringement.

The court described YouTube’s arguments about possible remedies as premature and stated that any remedies would be addressed later if warranted.

Disposition

The court denied YouTube’s motion to dismiss. The opinion addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings and did not decide the ultimate merits of the copyright claims or what remedies, if any, the plaintiffs may receive.