Albert v. Embassy of Sound and MEDIA GmbH

Background

Albert Marcel, a Canadian citizen domiciled in Canada, brought this self-represented action under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That provision allows a claim against someone who knowingly and materially misrepresents that material infringes a copyright when using the law’s takedown-notice process.

Albert sued Embassy of Sound and MEDIA GmbH, which the opinion also refers to as Embassy of Sound and Music GmbH, and Konrad von Lohneysen and Nadine Wrede. The opinion describes Embassy as a German company and the two individuals as German individuals affiliated with Embassy. Albert alleged that Embassy sent bad-faith takedown notices about music he owned to Spotify and other entities. He said TuneCore, LLC, in Brooklyn, New York, then ended its relationship with him and stopped providing distribution and YouTube-monetization services.

Venue Analysis

The court considered whether the Southern District of New York was the proper federal court location for the action. Albert argued that venue was proper because Embassy’s notice was directed to TuneCore, which he described as being in Brooklyn.

The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court stated that Brooklyn is within the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District of New York. It therefore concluded that venue was not proper in this Court under the specific basis Albert asserted. The court said venue for this type of claim involving a foreign entity was not straightforward, but it did not decide the underlying copyright-notice claim.

Order and Disposition

The court was inclined to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a statute allowing a federal court to transfer a case filed in an improper venue. It did not order the transfer immediately. Instead, it granted Albert 30 days to submit a brief statement explaining why the case should not be transferred. The court stated that it would transfer the action if Albert did not respond or if his response did not show why transfer should not occur.

The court denied as moot Albert’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier order requiring him to sign the complaint because he had submitted the requested signed declaration. It also ordered that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for an appeal.

Classification and Scope

This is a procedural order because the court addressed venue and a possible transfer without deciding whether Albert’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim was legally valid. The opinion does not state that the case was transferred on April 8, 2021; it gave Albert an opportunity to oppose transfer first.