George Steinmetz v. Shutterstock, Inc.

Background

George Steinmetz, a professional photographer, sued Shutterstock, Inc. over a cropped version of a photograph he created and copyrighted. The image showed burning practices used to convert rainforest into farmland. A third-party contributor uploaded the cropped image to Shutterstock’s contributor platform without Steinmetz’s consent. Shutterstock made the image available on its website for possible licensing and placed a Shutterstock watermark on it.

Steinmetz sent Shutterstock a takedown notice identifying the image and requesting its removal. Shutterstock removed the image from the public-facing URL in May 2021. After Steinmetz later said copies remained on the website but did not identify the relevant URLs, Shutterstock investigated and removed remaining traces from its website by September 22, 2021. The opinion states that the image was viewed four times by two users and was never licensed.

Steinmetz asserted direct and contributory copyright-infringement claims under Section 106 of the Copyright Act and a false copyright-management-information claim under Section 1202(a). Both parties moved for summary judgment, which is a decision entered without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and one party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Copyright-Infringement Claims

The court stated that displaying and distributing Steinmetz’s image without consent violated his exclusive rights under Section 106. The disputed issue was whether Shutterstock was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe-harbor provision, 17 U.S.C. § 512. That provision can protect qualifying online service providers from damages liability for certain copyright infringement involving material stored at a user’s direction.

The court held that Shutterstock satisfied the safe-harbor requirements. First, it was a qualifying online service provider because it operated a platform through which contributors could make images available for licensing. The court rejected Steinmetz’s argument that Shutterstock’s profit-making licensing model prevented it from qualifying. The court found that Shutterstock primarily facilitated licensing rather than actively licensing the image itself, did not obtain exclusive rights or pay royalties to the contributor, and did not profit from the particular image.

Second, Shutterstock had a policy for terminating repeat infringers. Its contributor terms notified contributors that their access or accounts could be limited or terminated for infringement, and Shutterstock accepted and responded to takedown notices.

Third, the court found no evidence that Shutterstock interfered with standard technical measures used to protect copyrighted works. Steinmetz provided evidence of metadata identifying him on a version of the image, but not evidence that the same metadata existed in the uploaded file, that Shutterstock knew about it, or that Shutterstock’s software removed it.

The court also found that the image was stored at the direction of the contributor, even though Shutterstock reviewed uploaded images for technical, quality, and other objectionable content. The court concluded that this limited review did not make the platform ineligible for the safe harbor.

The court further held that Shutterstock acted promptly after receiving Steinmetz’s compliant takedown notice. It was not required to search for additional copies or police the website on its own. The court found that Steinmetz’s later notice did not identify the URLs where he believed copies remained, and therefore did not require Shutterstock to remove those copies under the statute.

The court also rejected liability based on copies allegedly visible through HelloRF, StockFresh, and TinEye. It found that Shutterstock did not control those third parties, had not directed them to continue displaying the image, and had not received a takedown request identifying those copies. The court therefore held that Shutterstock was entitled to summary judgment on Steinmetz’s copyright-infringement claims.

False Copyright Information

Section 1202(a) requires proof that the defendant knowingly provided false copyright-management information and did so intending to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement.

The court held that Steinmetz did not establish either required element. Shutterstock’s watermark was not false because it identified Shutterstock as the source of an image accessed or distributed from Shutterstock’s platform. The court also found that the watermark was intended to prevent infringement, not to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal it. Shutterstock therefore was entitled to summary judgment on the false-information claim.

Disposition

Judge Hellerstein granted Shutterstock’s motion for summary judgment in full and denied Steinmetz’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Shutterstock with costs, terminate the motions, and mark the case closed.