IP: Did Vimeo drift outside the DMCA’s safe harbor?
Talk isn't cheap: Owners should not allow its employees to comment on potentially-patent infringing content.
October 15, 2013 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Video-sharing service Vimeo, a subsidiary of Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp, is another in a growing cadre of social media sites that share users' content with one another, allowing users to post videos and comments about those videos. The site has more than 14 million registered users and gets its revenue from subscription fees and advertising.
Like other social media sites that seek to build a larger audience and then hope to monetize their investment by targeted advertising to users (Pinterest, in particular, comes to mind), Vimeo walks a fine line when it comes to user-posted content that includes copyrighted material.
Sites that allow user-posted content generally enjoy protection from charges of infringement under the safe-harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which applies if a site removes infringing material when informed about it.
But in 2009, Capitol Records sued Vimeo for infringement over 199 user-generated lip-sync videos posted on the former's site, charging that Vimeo was facilitating copyright infringement by allowing the videos to remain on its site.
Vimeo — which has grown massively since the filing of the case to a database of more than 30 million videos — has long claimed that it dutifully responded to DMCA take-down notices but did not receive any for the videos in question. It sought to dismiss Capitol's suit, arguing that the videos don't infringe due to the DMCA's safe harbor.
The problem for Vimeo is that its employees posted comments about or even “liked” some of the allegedly infringing videos. Capitol argued that Vimeo should not be protected by the DMCA's safe harbor because Vimeo knew that the uploaded videos contained unlicensed copyrighted material and that Vimeo benefited financially from them.
In response, Vimeo did not deny that its employees had interacted with the videos, but claimed that such interaction did not cross the threshold under the DMCA for “knowing” about infringing activity and therefore losing its immunity.
Vimeo lost its bid to dismiss. On Sept. 18, 2013, a federal judge ruled that some of the videos might not qualify under DMCA. The judge felt that Vimeo's employees' interactions with the videos meant that it was not completely clear whether Vimeo had “actual or red flag knowledge” that would lose the company immunity under the DMCA.
The Vimeo litigation had been on hold pending a ruling in a similar case, in which Viacom sued Google's YouTube for displaying Viacom's copyrighted television and movie content on the Internet without authorization. In this case, the volume of videos being uploaded onto YouTube (estimated at a rate of more than 24 hours of viewing time per minute) may have contributed to the district court ruling in YouTube's favor, because the judge found it difficult to believe that YouTube could possibly monitor all of its users' activities, some infringing, as fast as Viacom or other copyright-holders may have preferred.
But let's rewind to the Vimeo episode. In the recent opinion denying Vimeo's motion, the judge clearly felt that Vimeo's proposed knowledge requirement set too high a standard for liability and was unprepared to hold as a matter of law that a service provider may disclaim knowledge of infringing material under any circumstance short of an “employee's awareness that the uploader has no legal defense for his or her otherwise infringing conduct.”
Doing so, the judge felt, would “collapse the distinction the DMCA makes between actual and red flag knowledge” and could “run contrary to the statute's requirement that infringing content only be objectively obvious to a reasonable person.”
So, as of now, Vimeo remains on the hook. For other entities, the takeaway is that if a site allows users to post materials, its owners should not allow its employees to comment on them, positively or negatively, without checking that those user-generated materials are not infringing. The wisest course may be to simply instruct employees not to comment on user-generated materials at all. Or else, you may drift outside the DMCA's safe harbor.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readFOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
Trending Stories
- 1Breast Cancer Patient's Negligence Claims Cleared to Proceed Against Recalled BioZorb Marker
- 2Pentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
- 3US Tower General Counsel Elevated to President
- 4Another US Law Firm Closes London Office
- 5Judge Largely Blocks Tennessee's Porn Site Age Verification Law as Other States Enforce Theirs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250