We The Protesters, Inc. v. Sinyangwe

Background

We The Protesters, Inc., doing business as Campaign Zero, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss three of the thirteen counterclaims asserted by Samuel Sinyangwe and Mapping Police Violence, Inc. The court treated the counterclaim allegations as true for purposes of the motion and drew reasonable inferences in Defendants’ favor, but did not have to accept legal conclusions presented as facts.

According to the amended counterclaims, Sinyangwe created the Mapping Police Violence project and its original website, including its data compilation, text, graphics, map, color scheme, and other visual elements. Defendants alleged that Campaign Zero later copied the website, published a copycat version at mappingpoliceviolence.org, removed language crediting Sinyangwe, diverted donations intended for the Mapping Police Violence project, and collected email addresses for Campaign Zero’s marketing list. These allegations were not findings that the alleged conduct occurred.

Copyright infringement counterclaim

Defendants alleged that Campaign Zero infringed copyrights in the original website and its selection, coordination, and arrangement of data, text, and graphics. Campaign Zero argued that Defendants had not identified the specific copyrighted works, had not identified copied text, and had not plausibly alleged substantial similarity between the original and copied maps.

The court declined to dismiss Counterclaim One. It held that Defendants had identified sufficiently specific works, including the original website’s calendar and map features, and had adequately alleged an original compilation. The court found that the modified maps appeared substantially different, but explained that the map was only one part of the larger alleged copyrighted work. The allegations that Campaign Zero initially copied the website’s public-facing contents and later made only minor modifications were sufficient to allow the copyright claim to proceed at the pleading stage.

Removal of copyright-management information

Counterclaim Two alleged that Campaign Zero removed copyright-management information—information identifying the creator of a copyrighted work—from the copied website. Defendants identified language stating that the map was created by Samuel Sinyangwe as the relevant information.

The court granted Campaign Zero’s motion to dismiss Counterclaim Two insofar as it was based on the modified map. Because the modified map was distinct from the original map, the court concluded that Campaign Zero could not plausibly have removed copyright-management information from the original work in that version. The court reached a different conclusion concerning the earlier, pre-modification version. The allegations supported an inference that Campaign Zero initially copied a substantially similar or possibly identical map and removed language crediting Sinyangwe. The court therefore allowed Counterclaim Two to proceed only on the pre-modification theory.

Cyberpiracy counterclaim

Counterclaim Seven alleged cyberpiracy under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Defendants relied on Campaign Zero’s alleged March 2023 re-registration of the mappingpoliceviolence.org domain, after the name “Mapping Police Violence” allegedly had acquired distinctiveness.

The court declined to dismiss Counterclaim Seven. It held that the statute’s reference to registration can include a later re-registration, not only the domain’s initial registration. The court also found that Defendants plausibly alleged an intent to profit by claiming that Campaign Zero used the copycat website to divert donations and collect email addresses. The court explained that nonprofit status did not by itself defeat the allegation of an intent to profit under the statute.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted in part and denied in part Campaign Zero’s motion to dismiss. Counterclaim One was not dismissed. Counterclaim Two was dismissed only as to the modified-map theory and was allowed to proceed as to the pre-modification theory. Counterclaim Seven was not dismissed. The court granted Defendants leave to file second amended counterclaims addressing the deficiencies identified as to Counterclaim Two, denied Defendants’ request for oral argument as moot, and directed that any second amended counterclaims be filed within thirty days if Defendants chose to do so.