Copyright Liability for Website Owners and Users
A recent SDNY federal court decision has led to new copyright liability concerns among website owners and their counsel. Those concerns are shared by, inter alia, various media, public policy and consumer groups.
March 26, 2018 at 02:35 PM
6 minute read
A recent SDNY federal court decision (Goldman v. Breitbart et al, case no. 17-cv-3144, rel. 2/15/18) has led to new copyright liability concerns among website owners and their counsel. Those concerns are shared by, inter alia, various media, public policy and consumer groups.
Here's the back story. In the summer of 2016, plaintiff Justin Goldman snapped a photo of Tom Brady (Boston Patriots quarterback) and Danny Ainge (Boston Celtics general manager), among others, on the street in East Hampton. Shortly thereafter, Goldman uploaded the photograph to Snapchat. The photo then went viral across various social media platforms, including Twitter where it was uploaded by several other users.
Over the following 48 hours, several online news outlets and blogs (defendants in this case) published articles relating to the possibility that Brady was helping Ainge recruit for the Celtics Kevin Durant (currently on the Golden State Warriors basketball team). Those articles prominently featured the photo by “embedding” the tweet in them, which led to this litigation based on an alleged violation of 17 USC 106(5), the exclusive right to “display” copyrighted works publicly.
The related concepts of websites linking and embedding objects (such as image, audio, video or other files), as elaborated below, have resulted in relatively novel copyright infringement and additional claims being made in this and other cases over the last decade. To better appreciate those claims, it helps to understand some basic website technology.
When a user visits a website, his or her Internet browser first requests and receives from a remote server textual content in the form of a single HTML document or file. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is simply a technical protocol or set of instructions for the proper display and functioning of web sites. Following instructions in that first file, web browsers then download additional files which are combined or rendered into what a user perceives as a multimedia website. Thus, websites are essentially an organized hierarchy of individual files or web pages.
Linking and embedding are ways to incorporate objects such as content files into a website. Although functionally equivalent, the main differences between them are where that other content or data is stored and what happens if the source file is updated after being linked to or embedded in your website.
“Linking” is like a pointer that refers to data in files remaining stored somewhere else, and any changes to that linked source file will show up at your end (i.e., as sort of a dynamic update). “Embedding” refers to data stored in your file, but without a connection to the original source file. Any update to that embedded source file will not show up on your end (i.e., your website will not change if and when the source file does). Which brings us back to the subject “embedded” tweet.
On their motion for partial summary judgment, the media defendants in Goldman argued that the Ninth Circuit's “server test,” articulated in its 2007 decision in Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146, shielded them from liability because they did not copy the photo to their websites or store it on their servers. In Perfect 10, the Ninth Circuit held that whether a website publisher is liable for copyright infringement turns on whether the content is hosted on the publisher's server.
Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's “server test,” the Goldman court denied defendants' motion. Instead, it granted partial summary judgment to the non-movant plaintiff in accordance with CPLR 3212(b)—which in relevant part provides: “If it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion.”
The SDNY court held that the plain language of the Copyright Act, its legislative history, and the Supreme Court's guidance in the 2014 Aereo case (134 S. Ct. 2498), provide no basis for a rule that would allow the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have displayed a work within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 106(5).
In other words, that the Goldman defendants embedded (rather than copied) the photo stored on Twitter's servers was not determinative nor a valid defense—although the court made clear that defendants' have several other outstanding “strong defenses to liability” that would be addressed at later stages of the case, including inter alia fair use and innocent infringement.
Emphasizing that the Copyright Act's definition of public display includes transmission by “any device or process, whether now known or later developed,” the court found that each of the defendants took “active steps” to put a process in place that resulted in a transmission of the photo by including HTML embed codes in the design of their webpages. This reasoning arguably applies to linking (in addition to embedding) third-party content.
In its reasoning, the court focused not only on the publishers' conduct but also the end users experience, concluding that “mere technical distinctions invisible to the user should not be the linchpin on which copyright liability lies.”
This decision has been decried by amici and others as ill-conceived, as well as disruptive of a broad consensus and industry practice in effect since Perfect 10 was decided a decade ago that effectively treated the “server test” as a copyright safe harbor. Regardless of how the rest of this case later plays out, the SDNY's undermining of the “server test” is problematic for users far beyond the sophisticated defendants in Goldman, given that embedding and arguably linking to (as contrasted with copying) copyrightable content online now increases litigation risks and costs. Proceed with caution.
Barry Skidelsky is a NYC-based attorney, consultant, arbitrator and mediator with a diverse national practice focused on media, entertainment, technology and telecommunications. Currently Chair of the NYSBA's Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section, Barry also practices before the FCC in Washington, D.C. Contact him at [email protected].
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Learning From Experience: The Best and Worst of Years Past
- 2Treasury GC Returns to Davis Polk to Co-Chair White-Collar Defense and Investigations Practice
- 3Decision of the Day: JFK to Paris Stowaway's Bail Revocation Explained
- 4Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 5LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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