Schneider v. YouTube, LLC

Background

Maria Schneider was one of three named plaintiffs in a proposed copyright class action against YouTube and Google, which the opinion refers to together as YouTube. Schneider alleged direct and indirect copyright infringement involving 76 musical compositions and two sound recordings. She also alleged that YouTube removed copyright-management information from her works in violation of Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

YouTube moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule without a trial that Schneider’s claims failed as a matter of law. YouTube argued that Schneider had licensed her works to YouTube, had not produced evidence of a DMCA violation, and filed some claims too late.

Copyright claims involving 27 works

After fact discovery ended, Schneider acknowledged that she had no evidence of infringement involving 27 works. The court granted summary judgment in YouTube’s favor on all infringement claims based on those works.

The publishing-license defense

YouTube argued that a 2014 Publishing Licensing Agreement gave it a license to Schneider’s compositions. The agreement covered compositions “owned or controlled” by Modern Works Music Publishing, which had received duties previously assigned to ArtistShare Music Publishing under Schneider’s administration agreement.

The court held that factual disputes prevented summary judgment based on that license. The record did not establish that Modern Works owned or controlled Schneider’s works, or that the works at issue were included in the catalog supplied to YouTube. The parties also disputed whether Schneider knew about or approved the license and whether she received or understood royalty statements and other communications.

The court did resolve a legal contract question. The administration agreement required notice to Schneider and her prior written approval for licenses granted on her behalf. The court concluded under New York law that this provision was a covenant—a contractual promise—not a condition precedent, meaning an event that must occur before a contractual right arises. The provision did not use the clear conditional language found elsewhere in the agreement, and the court declined to treat the lack of notice or consent as automatically making YouTube’s license invalid. The court also found the provision clear and unambiguous, so it did not consider outside evidence to change its meaning.

YouTube Terms of Service

The court granted summary judgment on direct-infringement claims involving 15 works that Schneider or people acting with her permission uploaded to YouTube. YouTube’s Terms of Service gave YouTube a broad license to use, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works from, display, and perform uploaded content. Because the uploads were authorized, the court ruled that YouTube’s uses of those works fell within that license.

The court denied summary judgment on indirect-infringement claims involving the same 15 works. The Terms of Service did not authorize users to upload infringing third-party content, so the terms did not automatically protect YouTube from claims that it materially contributed to, induced, or supervised infringement by users.

Time limits

The Terms of Service required claims related to YouTube’s services to be filed within one year after they accrued. The court rejected Schneider’s argument that this shortened period was unconscionable, meaning so unfair that it should not be enforced. The court found only a minor level of procedural unfairness because the terms were nonnegotiable, and found no substantial substantive unfairness in a one-year period. The court also ruled that YouTube did not waive this defense by failing to plead it in its answer because Schneider showed no prejudice.

The court rejected Schneider’s argument that the separate-accrual rule saved older claims merely because allegedly infringing videos remained online. The court concluded that YouTube established that 121 alleged infringements Schneider admitted knowing about more than one year before filing suit were barred by the contractual limitations period.

DMCA claims

The court denied summary judgment on the DMCA claims. The parties presented conflicting evidence about whether YouTube removed or altered copyright-management information, including certain metadata, and whether Schneider used such information to monitor her works. The court also found factual disputes about whether YouTube had the required knowledge or reasonable grounds to know that its conduct could facilitate or conceal infringement.

The court rejected YouTube’s argument that the DMCA claims were untimely. Although Schneider had criticized YouTube’s DMCA practices in 2017, YouTube did not provide evidence showing that she discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the specific bases for these claims outside the applicable limitations period.

Disposition

Judge Donato granted summary judgment for YouTube as to: (1) all infringement claims based on the 27 works for which Schneider identified no infringement; (2) direct-infringement claims based on the 15 works uploaded by Schneider or with her permission; and (3) the 121 alleged infringements Schneider knew about more than one year before filing suit. The court denied summary judgment in all other respects and directed the parties to file a numbered list of Schneider’s remaining works and infringement claims.