Hartmann v. Amazon.com Inc.

Background

Ralf Hartmann sued Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services LLC over four films: After the Rain, Commander Hamilton, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, and Drop Dead Gorgeous. Hartmann alleged that he owned copyrights and exclusive distribution rights in the films. He claimed that Amazon reproduced digital copies at data centers in the United States and made the films available through Prime Video for streaming, rental, or purchase in the United States and foreign countries.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted five claims under the Copyright Act or, for Count V, unspecified foreign copyright laws:

Legal standard

Amazon moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but it does not accept bare legal conclusions or formulaic statements of the elements of a claim.

For a direct copyright-infringement claim, the court required allegations identifying the specific works, alleging the plaintiff’s ownership, alleging registration of the copyrights, and describing what acts of infringement occurred and when. For contributory infringement, the plaintiff had to allege direct infringement by another party and facts supporting the defendant’s knowledge or reason to know of that infringement and material assistance. Vicarious infringement required allegations that the defendant could supervise the infringing activity and had a direct financial interest in it.

Rulings

Count I: Direct copyright infringement

The court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss Count I. The Second Amended Complaint identified the four films, alleged that Hartmann owned their copyrights, alleged that the copyrights were registered with the United States Copyright Office, and described Amazon’s alleged copying and distribution through Prime Video.

The court acknowledged that the attached exhibits did not conclusively establish Hartmann’s ownership and that the registration numbers in the exhibits related to recorded copyright documents rather than registrations for the underlying films. But the court held that the complaint did not need to prove ownership at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Hartmann’s allegations that ownership had been transferred to him through a chain of title were sufficient to allow the direct-infringement claim to proceed. The court stated that discovery, and potentially later summary-judgment proceedings, could address whether Hartmann could produce valid evidence of ownership.

Counts II and III: Contributory infringement

The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts II and III. Count III alleged that Amazon contributed to infringement by Prime Video users in the United States. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Amazon knew or had reason to know that the users were infringing Hartmann’s copyrights in these four films. General allegations about Amazon’s digital-rights-management tools, metadata, and industry experience were not enough. The complaint did not allege that Amazon had received notice, such as a cease-and-desist letter or takedown request, or that Amazon’s tools had actually revealed Hartmann’s ownership interests.

Count II alleged that Amazon’s copying in the United States enabled infringement by users in foreign countries. The court held that this claim failed for the same lack of allegations about Amazon’s knowledge. It also held that the complaint did not adequately identify specific foreign infringement or specific foreign infringers. General references to further infringement by Prime Video users abroad were insufficient to establish the domestic predicate act needed for the limited exception allowing certain foreign acts to be addressed under United States copyright law.

Count IV: Vicarious infringement

The court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV. Hartmann alleged that Amazon controlled Amazon Digital Services LLC and benefited financially from its alleged infringement. The court found these allegations conclusory. The complaint did not explain how Amazon controlled the subsidiary’s infringing activity or how Amazon obtained a financial benefit from that activity. The parent-subsidiary relationship alone was not enough.

Count V: Foreign infringement

The court granted the motion to dismiss Count V. The complaint referred generally to foreign copyright laws and listed countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan, and France, but it did not identify which countries’ laws Amazon allegedly violated, which specific provisions were violated, or the factual basis for those allegations. The court held that the claim was too vague to give Amazon fair notice of the legal and factual grounds for the claim.

Disposition

The court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss Count I and granted the motion to dismiss the other four claims. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and scheduled an initial pretrial conference. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the opinion and order on August 19, 2021.