wolk v photobucket dismissal

8/3/2019 Wolk v Photobucket Dismissal

1/69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - -XSHEILA WOLK, 10 Civ. 4135

P l a i n t i f f ,OPINION

-agains t " ' ' ' - , - - . - - - - - - ~ ' ~ ' . : " ,. - " : ~ ":,,'.:: ._ -" .._--'....> ,

.'l.,,,KODAK IMAGING NETWORK, INC., EASTMAN , ,

KODAK COMPANY, and PHOTOBUCKET.COM , INC. , I' i ,

i ij : , " " /- . ! i:Defendants .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XA P P E A R A N C E S:

Pro SeShei la Wolk 7 West 87th Stree t , Apt. 2D New York, NY 10024

Attorneys Defendants Kodak Imaging Network, Inc .and Eastman Kodak CompanyNIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer St ree t Boston, MA 02110 By: Gina M. McCreadie, Esq. 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 By: Mark D. Robins, Esq. One Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 By: Tal ley M. Henry,

Case 1:10-cv-04135-RWS Document 102 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 69
http:///reader/full/PHOTOBUCKET.COMhttp:///reader/full/PHOTOBUCKET.COM


2/69

Attorneys fo r Defendant Photobucket .com, Inc .NORWICK SCHAD & GOERING110 East 59th Stree t , 29th FloorNew York, NY 10022By: Kenneth P. Norwick, Esq.SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169By. Mark Alan Lerner , Esq.

http:///reader/full/Photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.com


3/69

Sweet, D.J.

There a re seven motions pending before the Court .P l a i n t i f f se Shei la Wolk ( the "PI n t i f f " o r "Wolk") hasf i l e d motions , pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, fo r both p a r t i a lsummary judgment aga ins t Defendants Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.and Eastman Kodak Company (co l l ec t ive ly , the "Kodak Defendants")as wel l as summary judgment aga ins t Photobucket .com, Inc .("Photobucket" and, with th e Kodak Defendants , th e"Defendants") . The Kodak Defendants have f i l ed a c ross motionfo r summary judgment with respect to a l l counts P l a i n t i f f ' scomplain t pursuant to th e same ru l e . Photobucket has f i l ed i t sown s imi la r motion. In add i t ion to the four summary judgmentmotions, a l so pending before the Court are P l a i n t i f f ' s motion toamend, P l a i n t i f f ' s motion to admit exper t t e s t imony and a motionP l a i n t i f f has f i l ed en t i t l ed "Motion To Inves t iga te TheSubordina t ion And Acts Of Per jury By The Defendants ."

Upon th e f indings and conclusions se t fo r th below,

P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r p a r t i a l summary judgment aga ins t theKodak Defendants , motion fo r summary judgment aga ins tPhotobucket , motion to amend, motion to admit expe r t t e s t imony

1

http:///reader/full/Photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/Photobucket.com


4/69

and motion to inves t e are denied. Defendants ' motions fo rsummary judgment are granted .

Prior Proceedings

Wolk f i l ed h er i n i t i a l complaint on May 19, 2010 andan amended complaint on July 6, 2010 ( "Complaint") . In theCompla , Wolk seeks dec la ra to ry judgment and an in junc t ion anda l l eges both d i r e c t and secondary copyr ight inf r ingement andi n t e r fe rence with advantageous business r e l a t i o n sh i p s . Wolk, anindependent a r t i s t o f fantasy images and spor t s a r t , l i censesh er images through an exc lus ive l i censing agent . Wolk a l l egest ha t c l i en t s of Photobucket have displayed, copied, modified andotherwise used her images on i t s s i n v io l a t i on hercopyr ights , and t h a t the Defendants have displayed, copied,prepared der iva t ive works and d i s t r i bu t e d her images without a

id l i cense .

The Complaint leges seven counts{ inc luding areques t fo r a dec la ra to ry judgment { a reques t fo r an in junc t ion{contr ibutory copyr ight inf r ingement by Photobucket{ v icar iouscopyr ight inf r ingement by Photobucket , d i rec t inf r ingement byPhotobucket , d i r e c t l i a b i l i t y fo r infr ingement by the Kodak

2



5/69

Defendants and i n t e r fe rence with advantageous bus iness r e l a t i onsby the Kodak Defendants .

There have been seve ra l mat te rs upon which the Courthas a l ready passed judgment. On September 15, 2010, Wolk f i l edan Emergency Motion fo r a Pre l iminary In junc t ion . Af te rgrant ing reques ts fo r extens ions of t ime, the motion wasconsidered fu l ly submit ted on November 3, 2010, and, anopinion dated March 17, 2011, Wolk's motion was denied ongrounds t ha t th e P l a i n t i f f did not demonstra te a l ike l ihood ofsuccess on the mer i t s and the P l a i n t i f f fa i led to sa t i s fy theo ther c r i t e r i a necessary to obta in r e l i e f . On March 22, 2011,Wolk f i l ed a motion to compel the re l ease conf iden t i a ldocuments to her proposed exper t wi tness . P l a i n t i f f ' s motionwas denied on grounds t ha t th e P l a i n t i f f had not es tab l i shed h erexper t to be a "bona f ide profess ional exper t " as requi red underthe p a r t i e s ' St ipu la ted Conf iden t i a l i ty Order, but the P l a i n t i f fwas gran ted leave to move to qua l i fy her proposed exper t as anappropr ia te witness under Daubert . Also on March 22, 2011,

a i n t i f f f i l ed a motion to increase the t ime a l lo t t ed fo rdiscovery and exper t repor t s . Th e motion was granted anddeadl ines to complete discovery and serve exper t repor t s wereextended. On Apri l 11, 2011, Wolk f i l ed a motion to s t r i ke

3



6/69

depos i t ion tes t imony of P l a i n t i f f ' s l i cens ing agent andin format ion r e l a t i ng to P l a i n t i f f ' s expe r t . Finding no bas i sunder the Rules of Civ i l Procedure fo r t h i s reques t , the Cour tdenied the P l a i n t i f f ' s motion.

There are seven motions t h a t remain pending before theCourt . On Apri l 8, 2011, P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a "Motion ToInves t iga te Th e Subordinat ion And Acts Of Per jury By TheDefendants ," and, on Apri l 19, 2011, both th e Kodak Defendantsand Photobucket f i l ed separa te af f i rmat ions in oppos i t ion to theP la in t i f f ' s motion. On May 4, 2011, Wolk f i l ed a motion fo rp a r t i a l summary judgment aga ins t the Kodak Defendants . Inresponse, th e Kodak Defendants f i l ed both t h e i r oppos i t ion tothe P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r p a r t i a l summary judgment as wel l as across-motion fo r summary judgment on a l l coun ts . The motionswere marked fu l ly submit ted on July 27, 2011. P l a i n t i f f f i l ed amotion to amend her complaint on June 26, 2011, which th e KodakDefendants have opposed. On September 13, 2011, Wolk f i l ed amotion to admit the exper t tes t imony of Dr. Robert Sarv i s . Th e

motion was marked fu l ly submit ted on October 28, 2011. OnSeptember 23, Photobucket f i l ed a motion fo r summary judgmentwith respec t to a l l counts of the Complaint . On October 15,2011, th e P l a i n t i f f f i l ed a cross-mot ion fo r summary judgment

4



7/69

aga ins t Photobucket on a l l counts . These motions were markedfu l l y submit ted on November 30, 2011.

The Facts

The f a c t s are s e t fo r th in the Local Rule 56.1Statements of Undisputed Fact submit ted by Wolk, the KodakDefendants and Photobucket. The f a c t s a re not in di spu te exceptas noted below.

Wolk has been a profes s iona l a r t i s t fo r over 40 yea rs .Working alone, Wolk spends a grea t deal of t ime crea t ing andproducing h e r a r t . Some of the images Wolk crea tes can consumeas much as a year of Wolk's profes s iona l t ime to crea te andproduce i n f i na l form. The P l a i n t i f f ' s sole source of income i sthe sa le o r l i cens ing of h er a r t , and Wolk runs an onl ine s to ret ha t exclus ively s e l l s her a r t . The a r t the P l a i n t i f f crea tesi s owed by Wolk and i s reg i s t e red with the United Sta tesCopyright Office .

Photobucket i s a photo-shar ing In t e rn e t se rv iceprovider t h a t opera tes a websi te located a thttp:/ /www.photobucket.com . Photobucket i s what i s known as a

5

http:///reader/full/http://www.photobucket.comhttp:///reader/full/http://www.photobucket.com


8/69

"user-genera ted conten t" webs i te , which provides an onl inepla t form for users to pos t mater ia l t ha t the users themselvesupload . Photobucket enables users who e s t a b l i s h a Photobucketaccount to upload d i g i t a l photographs and videos so tha t theymay be s tored and viewed on the websi te . The images and videos

ed to Photobucket, of which are approximate ly 9b i l l i on , a re genera ted by th e users themselves. Each image o rvideo on Photobucket i s as soc ia t with a unique uniformresource l oca to r , or "URL." Photobucket does not charge a feeto users to use s websi te , and Photobucket earns the major i tyof i t s income from adver t i s ing revenue.

Eastman Kodak i s a company founded in 1889 whosebus involves the development of cameras, fi lm and re la tedproduc ts . In 2001, Eastman Kodak acquired Of a t a , Inc . as awholly-owned subs id ia ry . In 2005, Ofoto, Inc . changed i t s nameto Kodak Imaging Network and th e anI photography cebecame known as KODAK l e ry . KODAK l e ry o f f e r s i t scustomers th e a b i l i t y to upload t h e i r persona l d i g i t

photographs , crea te and s to re albums to share with family andf r iends , and to orde r pr in t s of and products conta in ing t h e i rd i g i t a l photographs . Ef ive January 21, 2009, photobucketand Kodak Imaging Network ente red in to a Photo Pr in t and

6



9/69

Merchandise Agreement (the "Agreement lf ), which al lowedPhotobucket use rs to p r i n t images obta ined from Photobucket onproduct s ava i lab le through KODAK Gal le ry . Eastman Kodak was nota par ty to the Agreement.

At the t ime t h i s ac t ion was commenced, Photobucketal lowed use rs to submit photos to Photobucke t ' s former bus inesspar tner , Kodak Imaging Network, t o c rea te pr i n t s and o th e r i temsincorpora t ing the photographs . Photobucket s t a t e s t ha t it didnot con t ro l the Kodak Defendants ' a c t i v i t i e s pursuant to t h i sre l a t ionsh ip and t ha t it was not involved in th e KodakDefendants ' fu l f i l lmen t of order s . Photobucket also s t a t e s t ha tit played no ro le a use r ' s c i s ion to access th e KodakDefendants ' se rv ices and no ro le in the u s e r ' s se lec t ion ofimages fo r which the use r des i red the Kodak Defendants 'se rv ices . Wolk di spu te s t h i s charac te r i za t ion o f th ere l a t ionsh ip between Photobucket and the Kodak Defendants ,s t a t i ng tha t Photobucket unders tood th e a t ionsh ip under theAgreement between Photobucket and Kodak Imaging Network to be a

par tner sh ip . Photobucket contends t ha t it has r e f e r r e d to KodakImaging Network co l loqu ia l ly as i t s former bus iness "par tner , "bu t disputes the charac te r i za t ion as to how it unders tood there l a t ionsh ip . Photobucket disputes Wolk's content ion t ha t

7



10/69

Photobucket had the a b i l i t y to con t ro l th e a c t i v i t i e s of theKodak Defendants. Photobucket also avers t ha t Photobucke t ' sf inanc ia l b e n e f i t from i t s business re l a t ionsh ip with th e KodakDefendants was not con t ingen t on the p a r t i c u l a r images submit tedto Kodak Imaging Network by user s . Rather , Photobucket receivedthe same payment fo r any image pr in ted by a Kodak ImagingNetwork user , regardless o f content . The Kodak Defendants s t a t et ha t , under the Agreement between Kodak Imaging Network andPhotobucket , Kodak Imaging Network was ob l iga ted to payPhotobucket 50% o f "ne t prof i t s , f i meaning t o t a l monthly grossrevenue l e s s ce r ta in expenses .

Photobucke t ' s websi te inc ludes "Terms Use" t ha t areava i lab le to use rs of the websi t e . Under the Terms of Use,Photobucket use rs " repre sen t and warrant t ha t the pos t ingand use of your Content on o r through the Photobucket Servicesdoes not v io l a t e the pr ivacy r i gh t s , publ i t y r i gh t s ,copyr ights , con t rac t r i gh t s , i n t e l l ec t ua l prope r ty r i gh t s or anyo ther r i gh t s o f any person ." In add i t ion , the Terms of Uses t a t e :

Protect ing Copyrights and Other In t e l l e c tua l Property.Photobucket respects the i n t e l l e c t u a l proper ty ofothers , and requires t ha t our use rs do the same. You

8



11/69

may not upload, embed, pos t , emai l , t ransmit orotherwise make ava i lab le any mater ia l t ha t i n f r ingesany copyr ight , pa ten t , t rademark, t r ade se c re t oro ther propr i e t a ry r i gh t s of any person o r en t i t y .Photobucket has the r i gh t to t e rmina te the Membershipof In f r ingers . I f you bel ieve your work has beencopied and posted on o r through th e PhotobucketServ ices a way tha t cons t i tu te s copyr igh tinf r ingement , please fol low the procedures s e t fo r thin th e Photobucket copyr ight and IP Pol icy .

The P l a i n t i f f s t a t e s t ha t Photobucket does not r equ i reperspect ive users to read the Terms o f Use in order to r eg i s t e ras a use r . Photobucket does no t spu te t h i s t i n so fa r asPhotobucket only r equ i res use rs to agree to i t s Terms of Use inorder to s t e r , and Photobucket has no way of r equ i r ing usersto ac tua l ly read th e terms.

Photobucket s t a t e s t ha t it has t aken s teps inaccordance with the Dig i t a l Millennium Copyright Act ( the"DMCA") t ha t enable copyr ight owners who be l ieve t h e i r r i gh t sare being inf r inged by Photobucket use rs to not i fy Photobucketand have t h e i r con ten t removed. According to Photobucket thewebsi te advises s i to r s to the websi t e how to complain i f theybel ieve t h e i r r i gh t s are being in f r inged and, on every pagewhere an image i s displayed, the re i s a l ink lowing viewers to" repor t i nappropr i a t e content.1t Users who c l ick t h i s l i nk are

9

http:///reader/full/content.1thttp:///reader/full/content.1t


12/69

prompted to view Photobucke t ' s "Copyright and In t e l l ec t ua lProper ty Policy" and a re d i rec ted to send Photobucket a no t ice

of inf r ingement , or "take-down no t i ce . " According toPhotobucket , the websi te provides i n s t ru c t i o n s fo r users to sendthe take-down no t ice , informing use rs of the elements requi redunder the DMCA to provide Photobucket with the in fo rmat ionnecessary to remove the in f r ing ing mate r ia l . Among o th e rth ings , the i n s t ruc t ions s t a t e : " Iden t i fy th e mater ia l o r l inkyou claim i s in f r ing ing (o r th e sub jec t of i n f r ing ing ac t iv i ty)and t h a t access to which i s to be di sab led , inc luding a t aminimum, i f app l icab le , the URL of th e l ink shown on thePhotobucket websi t e where such mater ia l may be found." Thei n s t ruc t ions a l so des igna te an agent to r ece ive no t ices ofal leged inf r ingement . Photobucket has s t a t e d t ha t s t a f f membersreview each take-down not ice to ensure t h a t the copyr igh t holderhas provided the spec i f i c URL fo r each al legedly in f r ing ingimage because, i f a copyr ight holder provides only an image, thewebsi t e does not have the capabi l i ty to search the 9 b i l l i o nimages and videos fo r in f r ing ing mate r ia l . According toPhotobucket , i f a take-down not ice does not provide th e URL fo rthe a l leged ly in f r ing ing content , Photobucket s t f memberscontact the copyr ight holder to reques t the in fo rmat ion .

10



13/69

The i f f s t a t e s t ha t she has l imi ted knowledge ofcomputers and no formal educa t ion in computers or computersc ience . The knowledge she does have of computers has come fromusing a persona l computer and not from formal computer t r a in ing .Photobucket does not dispute t h i s fac t , bu t h igh l igh t s t ha tWolk, v ia a no t ices sen t using Photobucke t ' s onl r epor t ingsystem as e a r l y as May 2008 and in emai ls to Defendan ts 'counsel , has proven f able to asce r ta in and r epor t toPhotobucket al leged inf r ingements of he r work by URL, th espec i f i c charac te r s t r i ng tha t cons t i tu te s a re to anIn te rne t resource , and t ha t Wolk opera tes an onl ine r e t a i ls tore . Wolk s t a t e s t ha t when she f i r s t not i ced Photobucket , shedid not know what a URL was o r how it func t ioned in computersystems.

According to Photobucket , i f a take-down no t ice with aURL i s rece ived , Photobucket removes th e i n f r ing ing images andprovides the copyr ight holder with an email informing them t ha tthe con ten t has been removed. An email i s also sent to userwho posted the a l leged ly in f r ing ing image to al low th e user to

th e copyr ight holde r ' s c l of in f r ingement .Photobucket s t a t e s t ha t it a po l icy of banning repea toffenders from using the websi t e .

11



14/69

Wolk has s ta ted t h a t the Photobucket sof tware fe rstoo l s to al low i t s use rs to de fea t copyr ight ho lder s ' watermark.Photobucket does not dispute t ha t the sof tware of fe r s ed i t ingtoo l s t bu t r e j ec t s th e charac te r i za t ion t ha t t he se t oo l s areprovided to al low customers to de fea t a copyr igh t ownertswatermark. Wolk s t a t e s t ha t Photobucket ts search func t ion can,in some ca tegor ies , cause a use r to have search r e su l t s withmore than 70% of the images displayed being pro tec ted bycopyr igh t . Photobucket d ispu tes t h i s fac t and s t a t e s t ha t th ewebs i te t s search func t ion i s en t i r e l y dependent on in fo rmat ionsuppl ied by the Photobucket users who pos t the mater ia l . Wolkavers t ha t Photobucket rece ived a d i r e c t f inanc ia l b e n e f i t fromthe al leged copyr ight infr ingement of he r a r t and images.Photobucket disputes t h i s fac t , s t a t i ng t ha t it rece ived thesame share of p r o f i t s rea l i zed by Kodak fo r i n f r ing ing and nonin f r ing ing images and i t s revenues were in no way enhanced by o rdependent on the a l leged ly in f r ing ing nature of any par t i cu l a rimage.

Wolk has contended, and Photobucket does not di spu te tt h a t use rs of Photobucket have copied, displayed and modifiedWolk's copyr ighted mate r i a l and P l a i n t i f f has not given

12



15/69

approval fo r any of these users to copy, d isp lay , mOdify o rotherwise use her a r t . The a i f f s t a t e s product s havebeen made using her images by Kodak pursuant to Agreementwith Photobucket , a f a c t Photobucket does not d ispu te to theex ten t such product s were ordered by Wolk, proposed exper tDr. Robert Sarvis o r her proposed e xpe r t ' s ass i s t an t NickVi l i o . The Kodak Defendants aver t ha t , dur ing discoveryt h i s ac t ion , the Kodak Defendants f i r s t became aware of th ree

placed through KODAK Gal le ry by Nick Virgi l io fo rproducts conta in ing images he obta ined from Photobucket a t

reques t of Wolk's po te n t i a l exper t wi tness , Dr. Roberts . Photobucket notes t ha t th e i a ry record does not

lude any such product s having been made p r i o r to th e f i l i ngth e Complaint. According to Wolk, Kodak Imaging Network ' s

standard opera t ing procedure i s to v i s ua l ly review each imageproduct p r i o r to product ion , a fac t Kodak Defendantsdispute . With to Wolk's content ion t h a t Kodak ImagingNetwork made product s us ing her images, th e Kodak Defendantss t a t e t ha t th e th ree orders placed invo lv ing Wolk's were

f u l f i l l e d by Kodak Imaging Network 's t h i rd -pa r ty fu l f i l lmen tvendors withou t any human in te rven t ion by any employee th eKodak Defendants .

13



16/69

Wolk avers t h a t Photobucket and th e Kodak Defendantshave t ransformed h e r images withou t l i c en s e o r approval and havet rans fe r red h er images to subcont rac tors who have producedproducts using h e r images without l i c en s e o r her approval .Photobucket di spu te s these fac t s , s t a t i ng t h a t the re i s noevidence t h a t Photobucket t rans forms images when use rs decide tohave images made in to p r i n t s o r o ther Kodak product s .Furthermore, Photobucket s t a t e s t h a t it does not t ransimages, but r a t h e r al lows use rs to se l e c t images which a re thenautomat ica l ly sent to Kodak Imaging Network, and Photobucket hadno knowledge of the images se lec ted and plays no ro l e in how these lec ted images a re handled by th e Kodak Defendants .

Wolk s t a t e s t h a t in l a t e 2007 o r e a r l y 2008, shebecame aware t h a t h er images were being cop ied , disp layed andmodif ied by use rs of Photobucket i n v i o l a t i o n o f her copyr ights .Photobucket does not di spu te t h i s f a c t , but notes t h a t Wolk d idnot a t tempt to no t i fy Photobucket of any purpor ted infr ingementsu n t i l May 9, 2008. When Wolk d id n o t i fy Photobucket , she d id sothrough the websi t e , c l ick ing on th e image and se lec t ing anopt ion which allowed h e r to " repor t inappropr i a t e con ten t . "Wolk then se lec ted th e " in f r inges on my copyright" opt ion,causing a but ton l ink ing to Photobucket ' s "Copyr ight Policy" to

14



17/69

appear . The Copyright Pol icy d id not def ine URL as anabbrevia t ion fo r "uniform resource l oca to r , " but the po l icy didind ica te t h a t a URL l ink should included where app l icab le .Wolk avers t ha t , even a f t e r no t i fy ing Photobucket , her imageswere still displayed, copied and being modif ied . Photobucketdenies t h i s content ion , s t a t i ng tha t when Wolk i de n t i f i e din f r ing ing images to Photobucket v ia a proper no t ice with a URL,the images were removed.

On May 9, 2008, Wolk, in an i n i t no t ice , i de n t i f i e dan a l leged infr ingement of a pa in t ing the P l a i n t i f f ca l l ed"Sanctuary" and inc luded a URL. Wolk's no t ice s ta ted , in pa r t :"Can you please remove my so le ly owned copyr ighted pa in t ing of'SANCTUARY' from t h i s persons page. I never gave permiss ionsfo r them or anyone to use my artworks in t h i s fashion ofg l i i t e r t graphics t spa rk le s t messeges, e t c . A ll my artworks a recopyr ighted a t the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. andam sole owner o f 1 copyr ights . " In a second no t ice s en t onthe same day, Wolk i de n t i f i e d two o th e r images, ong with URLs,and s t a t e d : "My 'Tranqui l i ty t COPYRIGHTED PAINTING ( copyr ightedin Washington D.C. with the US Copyright Bureau) WHICH I AM SOLEOWNER OF i s in hennesey page of your websi t e .photobucket . . please remove my artwork from t h i s page "

15

I



18/69

(e l l ip ses in or ig ina l ) and "p lease remove these two pa in t ings ofmine t h a t were a l t e r e d without permissions and grabbed by your

s i t e person to give away or fo r you to s e l l as pr i n t s . "

According to Photobucket t on the fo l lowing daYtPhotobucket advised Wolk t h a t these no t ices d id not fu l l y complywith Photobucket ts o r th e DMCA's requ i rements fo r take-downno t ices , and Wolk was provided with i n s t ru c t i o n s on how toprovide a complete and compl iant n o t i ce . On May 12, 2008, Wolksubmit ted to Photobucket rev i sed no t ices i den t i fy ing th e imageswith URLs fo r the infr ingements she re fe renced in her May 9,2008 no t ices . The same day, Photobucket advised Wolk t h a t ithad removed the a l l eged in f r ing ing images.

On January I I , 2010 t Gordon P. Black, CorporateCounsel fo r Applejack A rt Par tne rs , Inc . sen t a take-down not iceto Photobucket . The no t ice explained t h a t Applejack ArtPar tne rs , Inc. i s th e exc lus ive l i censor of Wolk's artwork, andth e not ice l i s t e d 12 URLs and ar twork t i t l e s fo r Photobucket toremove. The same daYt photobucket faxed a response s t a t i ng : "Werece ived your fax reques t ing th e removal of content i n f r ing ingon Shei la Wolk's copyr igh t . Only one d i r e c t l ink was suppl ied ,and we are unable to f ind th e images by t h e i r t i t l e s a lone .

16



19/69

ease provide the d i r e c t l i nks to the images you need removed."The response included i n s t ru c t i o n s fo r how to f ind the d i r e c tl i nk . Photobucket s t a t e s t ha t it never rece ived a response tot h i s January 11, 2010 fax.

Wolk's i n i t i a l complaint , f i l ed on May 19, 2010, named15 of h er pa in t ings t ha t were l egedly in f r inged byPhotobucket. At l e a s t s ix of these a l leged infr ingements hadnot been previous ly i de n t i f i e d to Photobucket . Wolk's i n i t i a lcomplaint did not provide any URLs fo r her a l leged cont inuingin f r ingements . On July 2, 1020, Wolk f i l ed her AmendedComplaint t ha t added 7 more t i t l e s of pa in t ings . The AmendedComplaint noted t ha t , a f t e r f i l i ng the i n i t i a l complain t butpr io r to f i l i ng the amended complaint , Wolk provided anadd i t iona l l i s t i n g of in f r ing ing images to Photobucket a tPhotobucke t ' s reques t . According to Photobucket, the not iceprovided 123 URL-specific addresses fo r a l l eged infr ingmenetsand, the day a f t e r the not ice was received, Photobucket ' s thencounsel responded, s t a t i ng t ha t Photobucket had removed 102 ofthe images, but t ha t add i t iona l informat ion was requ i red on theremaining 21 images. Photobucket s t a t e s t ha t Wolk neverresponded to t h i s reques t fo r add i t iona l informat ion .

17



20/69

On July 171 2010 1 fo l lowing the f i l i ng of th e AmendedComplaint Wolk sen t two emai ls to Photobucke t / s couns

de ta i l ing more than 700 URL-ident i f ied a l leged inf r ingements .On July 221 2010 1 Photobucket /s counsel responded: "I am wri t ingto repor t to you t ha t Photobucket has t aken down a l l of th eimages you i de n t i f y by spec i f i c URL in your two e-mai l s to medated July 17. As we had prev ious ly reques ted those URLs weresu f f i c i en t l y complete to enable Photobucket to i de n t i f y each o fth e images t ha t you were seeking to have t aken down.1f

According to Wolk sample searches she has conductedhave yie lded approximately 3 / 000 inf r ingements of he r images.Wolk s t a t e s t ha t t h i s r ep resen t s a small por t ion of the fu l lamount inf r ingements occurr ing on Photobucket of her imagesand t h a t many o r her inf r ingements cons i s t o f mul t ip l edup l ica tes of images sometimes f ive or s ix copies of th e sameimage by a s ing le user . Photobucket does not di spu te t h i s f a c t ibut s t a t e s t ha t p r i o r to Wolk f i l i ng t h i s l awsui t Photobucketrece ived no not ice of these o th e r purpor ted in f r ingements , andthese o ther purpor ted inf r ingements th e P l a i n t i f f has i de n t i f i e dpos t -date the f i l i ng of her i n i t complaint . Photobuckets t a t e s t h a t has removed each in f r ing ing image when itreceived a DMCA-complaint not ice from Wolk. Wolk s t a t e s t ha t

18



21/69

Photobucket has f a i l e d t o implement and remove repea ti n f r ingers , and t ha t Wolk has i den t i f 22 repea t i n f r i nge r s .

The Applicable Standards l

In address ing the present motions, th e Court i smindful t ha t Wolk i s proceeding pro se and t ha t her submiss ionsare held to l e s s s t r i n g e n t s tandards than formal pleadingsdraf ted by lawyers . s v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101S.Ct . 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (quot Haines v. Kerner, 404

"

U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct . 594, 30 L. .2d 652 (1972)). The cour ts"cons t rue the p leadings of a se p l a i n t i f f l i b e r a l l y andi n t e rp r e t them to r a i s e th e s t ronges t arguments they sugges t . "Ful l e r v. Armstrong, 204 Fed. Appx. 987, 98 8 (2d Cir . 2006) ; see

so Lerman v. Bd. of Elec t ions in Ci N.Y., 232 F.3d 135,

1 As noted above, on Apri l 11, 2011, P l a i n t i f f f i l ed a"Motion To Inves t iga te The Subornat ion And Acts Of Per ju ry ByThe Defendants ." The P l a i n t i f f ' s motion s t a t e s t ha ta f f i da v i t a defense witness con ta ined fa l se in fo rmat ion andtha t , on informat ion and be l i e f , " the Defendants ' a t to rneysknowingly dra f t ed the fa l se a f f i dav i t and permi t ted it to bef i l ed with the Court . Notwithstanding the se r iousness of herl ega t ions , Wolk has provided no evidence to suppor t h ercontent ion t h a t a witness committed ury and t ha t tw oat torneys in t h i s ac t committed suborna t ion of per ju ry .P l a i n t i f f ' s accusa t ions a re complete ly unsupported , and themotion i s denied.

19



22/69

139 -4 0 (2d Cir . 2000) ("Since most pro se p la in t i f f s l ackfami l ia r i ty with the fo rmal i t i e s of pleading requi rements , wemust const rue pro se complaints l i be ra l l y , apply ing a moref l ex ib le s tandard to eva lua te t h e i r su f f i c i ency t ha t we wouldwhen reviewing a complain t submit ted by counsel . H) . However,the cour t s wi l l no t "excuse f r ivolous or vexa t ious f i l i ngs bypro se l i t igants ,H Iwachiw v. New York Sta te 't o f MotorVehicles , 39 6 F.3d 525, 529 n.1 (2d Cir . 2005), and "pro ses ta tus ' does not exempt a par ty from compliance with r e levan tru les of procedura l and subs tant ive law. 'H Triestman v. Fed.Bureau of Pr i sons , 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2 d Cir . 2006) (quotingTraguth v . Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir . 1983)) .

A. Appl icable Standard on a Motion to Amend

Leave to amend should be " f r e e l y give(n] . whenj u s t i c e so requ i res . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2) .Notwithstanding t h i s l en ien t s tandard , the dec i s ion to gran t o rdeny leave to amend i s within the d i sc re t i o n o f th e d i s t c t

cour t . See Forman v . Davis, 37 1 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct . 227, 9L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) . A d i s t r i c t cour t may proper ly deny leave toamend fo r "undue de lay , bad fa i th or d i l a to ry motive on the p a r tof the movant, repeated fa i lure to cure def i c i enc ies by

20



23/69

amendments prev ious ly a l lowed, undue pre jud ice to the opposingpar ty by v i r t ue of a l lowance of the amendment, f u t i l i t y ofamendment, etc. / I See i d . ; see a l so SCS Commc'ns Inc . v .Herr ick Co. , Inc . , 36 0 F.3d 329, 345 (2d r . 2004) (" [U]nderFed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) , leave to amend a pleading may only begiven when f ac to r s such as undue de lay o r undue pre jud ice to theopposing par ty a re a bs e n t . " ) . However, "mere delay i s not , ofi t s e l f , s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y den ia l a Rule 15(a) motion./IParker v . Columbia Pic tu res Indus . , 204 F.3d 326, 339 (2d Ci r .2000) .

"Although Rule 15(a) governs the amendment ofpleadings , Rule 16(b) a l so may l im i t th e a b i l i t y of a par ty toamend a pleading i f th e deadl ine spec i f i ed in th e schedul ingorder fo r amendment of the p lead ings has passed. / I Kassner v.2nd Ave. Del i ca t es sen Inc . , 496 F.3d 229, 243 (2d Ci r . 2007).Rule 16(b) (4 ) provides "[a] schedule may modif ied onlyfo r good cause [ . ] " The Second C i r c u i t has he ld t h a t , where ad i s t r i c t cour t has s e t a deadl ine fo r amending pleadings , " the

Rule 16(b) 'good cause ' s tandard , r a t he r than th e more l i b e r a ls tandard Rule 15(a ) , governs a motion to amend f i l ed a f t e rthe deadl ine [ . ] /1 Parker , 204 F.3d a t 340.

21



24/69

---------------------------------"A f ind ing of good cause depends on th e di l igence of

the moving par ty . " Grochowski v. r , 318 F.3d 80,86 (2d Cir . 2003) (aff i rming denia l of leave to amend where thepI n t i f f s delayed more than one year , discovery had completedand a summary judgment motion was pending) . "[T]he good causes tandard i s not sa t i s f i ed when the proposed amendment r e s t s oninformation ' t h a t th e par ty knew, o r should have known, inadvance of the deadl ine . ' " Ltd. V. NBTY Inc . , 754 F.Supp. 2d 5 2 7 ,5 3 6 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ( c i t a t i on omit ted) (f indingp l a i n t i f f acted with d i l igence in seeking leave to amend with intw o months of discover ing th e fac t s underlying i t s new cause ofact ion) i but see Jackson v. Roslyn Bd. of Educ. , 596 F. Supp. 2d581, 586 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (f inding p l a i n t i f f ' s delay of near lyf ive months to evince "a lack of di l igence") .

Although the moving p a r t y ' s di l igence i s a d i s t r i c tcou r t ' s "primary cons idera t ion" in i t s Rule 16(b) good causeinqui ry , a cour t "a l so may cons ider othe r r e levan t fac torsinc luding , in pa r t i cu la r , whether al lowing the amendment of thepleading a t th i s s tage of the l i t i ga t i on wi l l pre jud icedefendants . " Kassner, 496 F.3d a t 244. An amendment i spr e jud i c i a l to the non-moving par ty i f it "would r equ i r e theopponent to expend s ign i f i can t addi t iona l resources to conduct

22



25/69

discovery and prepare fo r t r i a l o r s ign i f i c a n t ly delay ther eso lu t ion of the d ispu te . " Ruotolo v. of New York, 514F.3d 184, 192 (2d Cir . 2008).

B. Appl icable Standard on a Motion to Admit Expert Testimony

A d i s t r i c t cour t can admit exper t tes t imony from aperson "qual i f ied as an exper t by knowledge, s k i l l , exper ience ,t ra in ing , o r educa t ion ," assuming t ha t "sc i en t i f i c , t echn ica l ,or o ther spec ia l i zed knowledge wi l l a s s i s t the t r i e r o f fac t tounderstand the evidence or to determine a fac t in i s sue . " Fed.R. Evid. 702. Under Daubert v. Merre l l Dow Pharm., Inc . , 50 9U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct . 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Rule 702o f the Federa l Rules of Evidence, the Cour t ' s ro le i s todetermine whether the "exper t" i s qua l i f i ed to t e s t i f y as anexper t . The Court conducts a two-part inquiry : (1) whether theexper t used a r e l i a b l e methodology; and (2) whether thetes t imony wi l l a s s i s t the e r of f ac t to understand theevidence o r to determine a f ac t in i s sue . Daubert , 509 U.S. a t

592 93. The d i s t r i c t cour t should not admit tes t imony t ha t i s"directed so le ly to l ay mat te rs which a ju ry i s capable o funderstanding and deciding without the e xpe r t ' s help ." United

v. Ca s t i l l o , 924 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d Cir . 1991).23



26/69

C. Applicable Standard on a Motion fo r Summary Judgment

Summary judgment should be rendered if the p leadings ,the discovery and d isc losu re ma te r i a l s on f i l e , and anya f f idav i t s show tha t there i s no genuine i s sue as to anymater ia l fac t and t ha t the movant i s en t i t l ed to judgment as amat ter o f law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) . The cour ts do noti s sues of fac t on a motion fo r summary judgment, but , r a ther ,determine "whether the evidence presen t s a s u f f i c i e n tdisagreement to require submission to a j u ry o r whether it i s soone-s ided t ha t one par ty must preva i l as a matter of law."Anderson v. I nc . , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - -2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) .

"The par ty seeking summary judgment bears the burdenof es t ab l i sh ing t ha t no genuine i s sue of mate r ia l fac t ex i s t sand tha t th e undisputed fac t s es tab l i sh [ i t s ] r igh t to judgmentas a mat ter of law." , 72 F.3d 1051,1060 61 (2d Cir . 1995) . Summary judgment i s appropr ia te wherethe moving par ty has shown t ha t " l i t t l e or no evidence may befound in suppor t of the nonmoving pa r ty ' s case . When nor a t i ona l jury could f ind in favor of the nonmoving par ty because

24



27/69

the evidence to suppor t i t s case i s so s l i gh t , the re i s nogenuine i ssue of mater ia l fac t and a grant of summary judgmenti s proper . " Gallo v. Prudent ia l Res ident ia l Serv s . , L .P. , 22F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir . 1994) ( c i t a t i ons omit ted) . Incons ider ing a summary judgment motion, th e Court must "view theevidence in the l i g h t most favorable to the non-moving par ty anddraw a l l reasonable in ference in i t s favor , and may gran tsummary judgment only when no reasonable t r i e r of fac t couldf ind in favor of the nonmoving par ty . " Allen v. Coughl in , 64F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir . 1995) ( in t e rna l c i t a t i o n s and quota t ionmarks omitted) i see a l so Matsushi ta Elec . Indus. Co. v. Zeni thRadio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct . 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986) . However, "the non-moving par ty may not r e ly simply onconclusory a l l ega t ions o r specula t ion to avoid summary judgment,but ins tead must o f f e r evidence to show t ha t i t s ver s ion ofevents i s not wholly f anc i fu l . " Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102,109 (2d Cir . 1999) (quotat ion omit ted) .

Pla in t i f f ' s Motion to Amend the Complaint Is Denied

As descr ibed above, motions to amend are t yp i ca l l ygoverned by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a ) , which requi re s a cour t tof ind undue de lay , bad f a i th o r d i l a to ry motive, repeated f a i lu re

25



28/69

to cure def i c i enc ies by previous ly al lowed amendments, o r unduepre judice to the opposing par ty to j u s t i f y den ia l of a motion toamend. However, when a motion to amend i s brought a f t e r thedead l ine s e t fo r such motions by the schedul ing order , themotion i s governed by Rule 16(b) , which prov ides t h a t schedul ingorders " sha l l not be modified except upon a showing of goodcause . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ; Parker , 204 F.3d a t 339-40.Wolk's motion to amend was f i l ed on June 26, 2011, near ly sevenmonths a f t e r the November 30, 2010 deadl ine s e t by th eschedul ing orde r to which the par t i e s s t i pu l a t e d . Accordinglythe Rule 16(b) "good cause" s tandard wi l l be appl ied .

In h er amended complaint , Wolk proposes to r e t r a c tCount VII, which a l l eges in t e r fe rence with advantageous bus inessr e l a t i ons by Kodak Gal le ry and the Kodak Defendants , and in s teadbr ing a new Count VIII al leg ing u n fa i r compet i t ion by KodakGal le ry and the Kodak Defendants . The new count a l l eges t ha tthe Kodak Defendants , wi thout au thor i za t ion o r l i cense , copied,d i s t r i b u t e d , produced and sold the P l a i n t i f f ' s work, and t h a t

the produc t s the Kodak Defendants produce are i n d i r e c tcompet i t ion wi th produc t s produced under l i cense using Wolk'simages by Wolk's l i censees . As such, th e Kodak Gal le ry and theKodak Defendants d i rec t l y i n t e r fe re with the commerc ia l i za t ion

26



29/69

o f the P l a i n t i f f ' s images, damaging the P l a i n t i f f in the amounto f $1,500,000. The proposed amended complaint a l so reques ts anaward of puni t ive damages in th e amount of $6,000,000 fo r theu n f a i r compe t i t ion Kodak Gal l and th e Kodak Defendants .

As descr ibed above, when a motion to amend i s broughta f t e r deadl ine s e t by th e Court , Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ,which provides t h a t schedul ing orders "sha l l not be modif iedexcept upon a showing good cause , " app l ies . "Good cause" i sno t sa t i s f i ed when the proposed amended compla in t r e s t s oninformat ion t ha t th e movant "knew, o r should have known, inadvance of th e deadl ine ." Enzymotec, 754 F. Supp. 2d a t 536.Here, Wolk has not shown good cause to add a cla im commonlaw unfa i r compet i t ion . There i s no evidence t h a t the unfa i rcompeti t ion c la im tu rns on any s t ha t were not av a i l ab l e toWolk when she commenced t h i s ac t ion , as a l l the f a c t s a l leged inthe proposed Count VII I were inc luded in he r o r i g i n a l amendedcompla int . As such, Wolk has not shown the "good cause"necessary to allow h er to amend her complaint a f t e r the November30, 2010 deadl ine .

While it i s t rue t h a t Wolk i s proceeding se , evenwhen he r motion to amend i s eva lua ted under th e l e s s s t r i n g e n t

27



30/69

s tandard provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) , her motion stillf a i l s . Wolk moved to amend her complain t in l a t e June 2011.Her motion comes a f t e r she previously amended her complaint ,a f t e r the November 30, 2010 deadl ine fo r amending the pleadings ,a f t e r the motions fo r summary judgment were f i l ed and a f t e r theJune IS, 2011 discovery deadl ine . Even under the more l i b e r a lRule 15(a) s tandard , it i s improper to amend a complain t and adda new claim in response to a motion fo r summary judgment whendiscovery i s complete. See, e . g . , AEP Energy Servs . Gas HoldingCo. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 626 F.3d 699, 726-27 (2d Cir . 2010)(holding t ha t l eave to amend should be denied where motion toamend was f i l ed a f t e r defendant had f i l ed summary judgmentpapers based on ex is t ing claims) i v. Dunn & Brads t r ee t

. , 482 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir . 2007) ( "P la in t i f f s sought to- - ~ -amend t h e i r complain t a f t e r an ino rd ina te delay . By t ha t t ime,discovery had closed , defendants had f i l ed fo r summary judgment,and near ly two years had passed s ince the f i l i ng of the or ig ina lcomplaint. In l i g h t of t h i s record , we conclude t ha t thed i s t r i c t cour t d id not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i on in denyingp l a i n t i f f s ' leave to amend. ll ). Given t ha t discovery has beencompleted, it would be inappropr ia te to al low the P l a i n t i f f toamend h er complaint a t th i s s tage of the l i t i g a t i o n .

28



31/69

The a i n t i f f cannot meet e i the r the "good cause"s tandard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) o r the l e ss s t r i ngen ts tandard provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) . Accordingly , hermotion to amend the complaint i s denied.

Pla in t i f f ' s Motion to Admit Expert Testimony Is Denied

Pla in t i f f has f i l ed a motion to admit the exper ttest imony of Dr. Robert Sarv i s . In her motion, Wolk s t a t e s t ha tDr. Sarvis holds a Doctor of Business Adminis t ra t ion , haspreviously s tud ied probabi l i ty and s t a t i s t i c s , has t aughtundergraduate and graduate l eve l courses in bus iness ands t a t i s t i c s a t accredi ted univers ie s and has se rved as aconsul tan t on var ious f inanc and copyright i s sues fo r overf ive years . Wolk's motion s t a t e s :

The methodology of s t a t i s t i c a l ana lys i s employed by Dr.Sarvis i s genera l ly accepted, r e l i ab le , and wel l t es ted inthe sc i en t i f i c community. The approach i s peer reviewedand included in most textbooks on the sub jec t popula t ionsampling and s t a t i s t i c a l ana lys i s . He bases h isconc lus ions and opinions upon the r e su l t of theses t a t i s t i c a l surveys fo r which s tandard devia t ion ands t a t i s t i c a l e r r o r can and are measured.

29



32/69

Wolk s t a t e s t h a t Dr. Sarv i s ' tes t imony i s important toadjudicat ing t h i s case because Dr. Sarvis can address thei r reparab le harm to the P l a i n t i f f r e s u l t i ng from the Defendants 'a l leged ac t ions . Furthermore, Wolk s t a t e s t ha t Dr. Sarv i s wi l les tab l i sh t h a t the so l i c i t a t i on and d isp lay of copyrightedimages by Photobucket i s an in tegra l pa r t of Photobucket ' sbus iness and t h a t the Defendants " turned a b l ind eye" to thecopying, displaying, t r a ns f e r and reproduc t ion of theP l a i n t i f f ' s ar twork. The P l a i n t i f f ' s motion does not includeany wri t ten r epor t , opin ion , a f f i d a v i t o r any s ta tement from Dr.Sarv i s .

"Whether a purpor ted exper t witness i s qua l i f i edi s a ' th reshold ques t ion ' to be resolved pr i o r to o theri nqu i r i e s . " See Aris t a Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. 06 CV5936 (KMW) , 2011 WL 1674796, a t *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2011) (c i t ing= = ~ ~ ____ ~ ~ _ o ~ f _ N__. Y ~ . , 414 F.3d 381, 396 n . l l (2d r . 2005).The only evidence P l a i n t i f f has submit ted a t t e s t i ng to Dr.Sarv i s ' qua l i f i ca t ions i s h is "Vi ta ," which descr ibes Dr.

Sarv i s ' educa t iona l background, teaching experience and bus inessand consul t ing exper ience . The Defendants argue t ha t t h i s v i t aprovides i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of Dr. Sarv i s ' qua l i f i c a t i ons inthe f i e ld of s t a t i s t i c s , not ing t h a t Dr. Sarv i s ' v i t a does not

30



33/69

list any degree o r profe s s iona l ce r t i f i ca t ion s t a t i s t i c s nordoes it list any publ i shed works or tes t imony presented in th e

lf i e ld of s t a t i s t i c s . However 1 Dr. Sarvis v i t a does inc ludecourses in "business s t a t i s t i c s " and s t a t e s t ha t he hasexper ience t each ing s t a t i s t i c s a t the undergraduate and graduatel eve l s . As Judge Weinste in i n s t ruc t s "The s tandard fo rqua l i fy ing expe r t witnesses i s l i b e r a l . This generos i ty extendsto subs tant ive as well as formal qua l i f i c a t i ons . " 4 Weinste in / sFedera l Evidence 1 702.04[1] . Accordingly , Dr. Sarvis ltes t imony w i l l not be excluded on grounds t ha t h isqua l i f i ca t ions are i n s u f f i c i e n t .

l

The P l a i n t i f f ' s motion to admit Dr. S ar v i s ' tes t imonyi s denied because the P l a i n t i f f has fa i led to provide th e Courtwith informat ion s u f f i c i e n t to conduct a Dauber t an a ly s i s .

though discovery in t h i s mat te r has concluded, no exper tr epor t o r s ta tement for the b as i s o f Dr. Sarv i s ' opin ions hasbeen provided. While P l a i n t i f f ' s l u re to se rve an exper tr epor t by the Apr i l 30 1 2011 dead l ine may be excused on account

of the then-pending (and u l t imate ly unsuccessful ) motion tocompel the p roduct ion o f documents to Dr. Sarvis the P l a i n t i f fhad ample t ime fol lowing th e reso lu t ion of t ha t motion to servea repor t o r seek add i t iona l extens ions . The Court / s August 25,

31



34/69

2011 orde r provided the Pla in t i f f un t i l September 15, 2011 tof i l e a motion to admit Dr . Sarvis as an exper t under Daubert ,but the P l a i n t i f f did not serve any repor t .

Under Daubert , the t r i a l cour t i s t a sked with"ensur ing t ha t an e xpe r t ' s tes t imony both r e s t s on r e l i ab l efoundat ion and i s r e levan t to th e t a sk a t hand." Daubert , 509U.S. a t 597. Th e proponent of exper t tes t imony bears th eburden, by preponderance of the evidence , to demonstra te t h a tthe admiss ib i l i t y requirements of Rule 702 a re sa t i s f i ed . SeeIn re NYSE S p e c i a l i s t s Li t ig . , 260 F.R.D. 55, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(c i t ing United Sta tes v. Will iams, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir .2007)) . Fed. R. Evid. 702 prov ides :

A witness who i s qua l i f i ed as an exper t by knowledge,s k i l l , exper ience , t ra in ing , o r educa t ion may t e s t i f y inthe form of an opinion o r otherwise i f :(a) the e xpe r t ' s sc i en t i f i c , t echn ica l , o r o ther

spec ia l i zed knowledge wi l l help the t r i e r of f a c t tounderstand the evidence or to determine a fac t ini s sue;

(b) the tes t imony i s based on su f f i c i en t fac t s or data ;(c) the tes t imony i s the product of r e l i ab l e p r i n c i p l e sand methods; and

(d) the exper t has r e l i ab l y appl ied the p r i n c i p l e s andmethods to the fac t s of the case .

In addi t ion to the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702, Daubertenumerates o ther f ac to r s which bear on th e r e l i ab i l i t y of

32



35/69

proposed exper t tes t imony, inc luding ( i) whether the theory ortechnique can be t e s t ed ; ( i i ) whether th e theory o r techniquehas been sub jec t to peer review; ( i i i ) the t echn ique ' s nknown o rp o t en t i ra te error H and nthe ex i s t ence and maintenance o fs tandards con t ro l l ing the technique 's opera t ion" ; and ( iv)whether a pa r t i c u l a r technique o r theory has ga ined genera lacceptance in the sc i en t i f i c community. See Daubert , 509 U.S.a t 593-94; Will iams, 506 F.3d a t 160.

Here, the Pla in t i f f asks the Court to conduct aDaubert ana lys i s based so le ly on her desc r ip t ions Dr. Sarvis!conclusions . No explanat ion has been provided regarding Dr.Sarv i s ' methods, except ing th e P l a i n t i f f ! s content ion t h a t" [ t )he methodology of s t a t i s t i c a l ana lys i s employed by Dr.Sarvis i s genera l ly accepted! re l iab le ! and well t e s ted in thesc i en t i f i c community.H Even i f t h i s content ion i s accepted , theP l a i n t i f f ' s motion f a i l s to a l lege any fac t s which suppor t themethodology's acceptance in the sc i en t i f i c community. Themotion does no t ident i fy any peers who have reviewed th e

methodology o r any data to suppor t the methodology 's acceptanceor r e l i a b i l i t y . The motion f a i l s to presen t f i c i en t fac t s o rdata upon which Dr. Sarv i s ' opin ions a re based , a f i c i en tdescr ip t ion of the pr inc es and methods Dr. Sarv i s ' employed

33



36/69

or a descr ip t ion how Dr. Sarv i s ' appl ied h is methodology tothe f ac t s of th e case . Because th e i n t i f f ' s motion f a i l s tomeet the c r i t e r i a es tab l i shed in Fed. R. Evid. 702 o r Dauber t ,the P l a i n t i f f ' s motion to admit exper t t es t imony must be den ied .

Pla in t i f f ' s Motions for Part ia l Summary Judgment Against theKodak Defendants and Summary Judgment Against Photobucket AreDenied, and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Are Granted

On May 2, 2011, Wolk moved fo r p a r t i a l summaryjudgment aga ins t the Kodak Defendants . The Kodak Defendantshave opposed th e P l a i n t i f f ' s motion fo r p a r t i a l summary judgmentand have f i l ed a cross-mot ion fo r summary judgment on a l lcount s . In add i t ion , Photobucket has f i l e d a motion summaryjudgment seeking dismissa l a l l P l a i n t i f f t s aims, towhich wolk has responded with a cross-mot ion fo r summaryjudgment aga ins t Photobucket . For th e reasons s t a t e d below, theP la in t i f f ' s motions fo r p a r t i a l summary judgment aga ins t th eKodak Defendants and summary judgment aga ins t Photobucket a redenied, and Defendants ' motions fo r summary judgment aregran ted .

A. The Pla in t i f f ' s Motion For Part ia l Summary Judgment WithRespect To Th e Kodak Defendants Is Denied, And The KodakDefendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Is Granted

34



37/69

Wolk has moved fo r p a r t i a l summary judgment aga ins tth e Kodak Defendants , seek ing a dec la ra to ry ru l ing t h a t th eKodak Defendants i n f r inged on the copyr igh t s o f th e P l a i n t i f f ,t h a t th e Kodak Defendants a re not a "se rv ice prov ider" o r , inth e a l t e rn a t i v e , a re no t pro tec ted by th e safe harbor prov i s ionso f th e DMCA, t h a t th e Kodak Defendants ' in f r ingement was w i l l fu land t h a t th e P l a i n t i f f i s en t led to s t a tu to ry damages under 17U.S.C. 504 (a) (2), (c) (1) and (c) (2 ) p er work o f a r ti n f r inged . In th e Complaint , the re are four coun ts per ta in ingto th e Kodak Defendants : Count I reques t ing a dec la ra to ryjudgment t ha t th e Defendants ' i n f r inged upon th e P l a i n t i f f ' scopyr igh t s , Count I I reques t ing a permanent in junc t ion , Count VIa l leg ing d i r e c t l i a b i l i t y fo r in f r ingement by Kodak Gal le ry andth e Kodak Defendants and Count VII a l l eg in g i n t e r f e r en ce withadvantageous business r e l a t i o n s by Kodak Gal le ry and th e KodakDefendants . In her rep ly br i e f in suppor t of th e motion fo rp a r t i a l summary judgment, the P l a i n t i f f has s t a t e d tha t shewaives h er cla ims fo r t o r t i o u s in te r fe rence aga ins t the KodakDefendants . Accordingly , the remaining ques t ion re l evan t towhether th e Kodak Defendants can be held l i ab l e i s whether th e

35



38/69

Kodak Defendants engaged in d i r e c t in f r ingement of Walk'scopyr ighted images. 2

In her motion, Walk de t a i l s ten ins tances where theKodak Defendants a l leged ly made, sold and shipped products usingWolk's copyr ighted images without obta in ing Wolk's permiss ion o ra va l id l i cense . Because the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106(1) , (2) and (5), gran t s the owner of the copyr igh t exc lus iver igh ts to reproduce, produce der iva t ive works and d i s t r i bu t e thecopyr ighted images, Wolk argues t h a t th e Kodak Defendants 'crea t ion and d i s t r i bu t ion o f these products causes them to bel i ab le fo r s t a tu to ry damages as s e t fo r th in 17 U.S.C. 504(a) (2), (c) (1 ) and (c) (2) . Although d i r e c t infr ingement i snot a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y t o r t , Wolk a l l eges t ha t th e KodakDefendants ' i n f r ing ing ac t i v i t y meets the l eve l of "vo l i t ion"requi red under the Second r c u i t case of Cartoon Network LP v.CSC Inc . , 536 F.3d 121, 130 31 (2d Cir . 2008) because- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - -the Kodak Defendant ' s made copies of images and t ransformed2 While a defendant may be held secondar i ly l i ab l e fo rano ther ' s in f r ingement , see Am. v. Universa lStud ios , Inc . , 464 U.S. 417, 434-35, 104 S.Ct . 774, 78 L.Ed.2d574 (1984) , Wolk has no t pled any form of seconda r i ly l i a b i l i t ywith respect to the Kodak Defendants . Wolk has pled var iousforms of secondary l i ab i l i t y aga ins t Photobucket. Accordingly,it i s assumed t ha t the only form o f inf r ingement Wolk a l l egesaga ins t the Kodak Defendants i s d i r e c t in f r ingement .

36



39/69

them in to products , thereby changing the Kodak Defendants 's t a tus from being "pass ive prov ide rs of a space in whichin f r ing ing a c t i v i t i e s happen to occur to ac t ive pa r t i c ipa n t s inth e process of copyr igh t in f r ingement . " Aris ta Records LLC v.Usenet.com , Inc . , 633 F. Supp. 2d 124, 148 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)Wolk also argues t ha t , unl ike Cartoon Network where thedefendants made a s ing le copy, th e Kodak Defendants have mademult ip le cop ies , modifying wolk1s ar twork to conform to apa r t i c u l a r product . As such, Wolk concludes t h a t the KodakDefendants have d i r e c t ly in f r inged .

Wolk avers t ha t th e Kodak Defendants do not qua l i fyfo r t he sa fe harbor the DMCA affords to "se rv ice prov iders"where i n c id en t a l inf r ingement occurs when these se rv iceproviders perform In te rne t func t ions , such as p rov id ing s toragea t the d i sc re t ion of a user . The P l a i n t i f f fu r t h e r contendst h a t Eastman Kodak i s v icar ious ly l i ab l e because Kodak ImagingNetwork i s a wholly-owned subs id ia ry o f Eastman Kodak.

Wolk s t a t e s t h a t she i s en t i t l ed to s t a tu to ry damagesand t ha t , pursuan t to 17 U.S.C. 504(c) (1) , th e KodakDefendants are ob l iga ted to pay damages on a p e r image b a s i s .The P l a i n t i f f notes t ha t s t a tu to ry damages are awarded when no

37

http:///reader/full/Usenet.comhttp:///reader/full/Usenet.com


40/69

ac tua l damages a re proven o r ac tua l damages and p r o f i t s ared i f f i c u l t o r impossible t o c a l cu l a t e , and, in t h i s case, theKodak Defendants have e i t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r with wantondi s rega rd f a i l e d to keep and main ta in the records necessary toca l cu l a t e damages. Wolk contends t h a t , s ince th e KodakDefendants cannot demonstra te e i t h e r t h a t they were unaware o rt h a t they had no reason to be l i eve t ha t t h e i r ac t s cons t i tu t edinfr ingement , the Kodak Defendants ' a re s t r i c t l y l i ab l e , t h e i rinf r ingement i s considered " w i l l f u l ll under th e s t a t u t e and th ed i s t r i c t cour t has d i sc re t ion to inc rease the damages award upto $150,000 per "wi l l fu l ly l l i n f r inged work, pursuan t to 17U.S.C. 504(c) (2) . In suppor t of t h i s argument , Wolk notest ha t Dr. Sarv i s and h is a s s i s t a n t were able to purchase productst ha t contained Wolk's copyr igh ted images a f t e r t h i s ac t ion hadbeen f i l e d , and, under appl icable Second C i r cu i t preceden t ,where soph is t i ca ted defendan ts knew o r should have known t ha tt h e i r conduct was in f r ing ing , those defendan ts in f r ingem ent i sc l a s s i f i e d as "w i l l fu l . 1I See Twin Peaks Prods . , Inc . v.Publ ica t ions I n t ' l , Ltd . , 996 F.2d 1366, 1382 (2d Cir . 1993) .The P l a i n t i f f argues t ha t t h i s i s a case where th e imposi t ion o fs t a t u t o ry damages i s necessary as a d e t e r r e n t to p ro t e c ta r t i s t s , who of ten have l imi ted resources and are unable top r o t ec t t h e i r r i gh t s .

38



41/69

"To es tab l i sh a cla im of copyright infr ingement , apI i f f must es tab l i sh (1) ownership of a va l id copyr ight , and(2) unauthorized copying o r a v io l a t i on of one of the o th e rexc lus ive r i gh t s afforded copyr igh t owners pursuant to theCopyright Act ." Byrne v. Br i t i s h Broad Corp. , 132 F. Supp. 2d229, 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (c i t ing Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d a t 1372).Direc t l i a b i l i t y r equ i res "vo l i t iona l conduct" t ha t "causes" theinfr ingement . See Cartoon Network, 536 F.3d a t 131. In CartoonNetwork, the Second Circu i t addressed a case involvingCablevis ion 's Remote Storage Dig i t a l Video Recorder em,which lowed cab le t e lev i s ion subscr ibers to s e l e c t programs tobe reproduced onto Cablevis ion 's hard dr ives fo r l a t e r playback.See Cartoon Network, 536 F.3d a t 12 3 25, 130. In determiningwhether Cabl s ion could be held l i ab l e fo r c rea t ing anunauthorized reproduct ion of a t e l s ion program, the SecondCircu i t adopted the "vo l i t ion s tandard" , not ing t ha t :

[T]o e s t a b l i s h d i r e c t l i a b i l i t y u n d e r . . the [Copyright] Act ,something more must be shown than mere ownership of a machineused by o ther s to make i l l e g a l copies . There must be actualinfr inging conduct with a nexus s u f f i c ly c lose and causa l tothe i l l ega l copying t ha t one could conclude t ha t the machineowner himself t respassed on the exclus domain of thecopyright owner. Id . a t 130.

39



42/69

In dec id ing the case , the Second Circu i t held t ha t"Cablevis ion ' s conduct in des igning, housing and mainta in ing asystem t h a t e x i s t s only to produce a copy" was not su f f i c i en t l yproximate to any ins tance of unauthor ized copying i n s t i ga t e d bya Cablevi s ion customer to hold Cablevi s ion l i ab l e as a d i r e c ti n f r inger . rd . a t 131. Rather , "by se l l i ng access to a systemt h a t automat ica l ly produces copies on command, Cablevi s ion morec lose ly resembles a s to re p ropr i e to r who charges customers touse a photocopier on h is premises and it seems i ncor rec t to say,wi thou t more, t ha t such a propr i e to r 'makes' any cop ies when h ismachines are ac tua l ly opera ted by h is customers." rd. a t 132.Accordingly, the Second Circu i t reversed the summary judgmentt ha t had been ente red aga ins t Cablevi s ion . rd .

Applying Cartoon Network to the Kodak Defendants ,there i s no evidence of vo l i t i ona l conduct , the reby prevent ingWolk from es tab l i sh ing d i r e c t l i a b i l i t y . Wolk has presented twotheor ies to hold the Kodak Defendants l i ab l e fo r inf r ingement :f i r s t , the Kodak Defendants inf r inged because they reproducedher images onto var ious product s i and second, the KodakDefendants in f r inged because an e lec t ron ic preview page i sgenera ted on the Kodak Gal le ry websi te when a use r i s making anorder fo r a product bear ing an image imported from th e

40



43/69

Photobucket websi te . However, th e evidence the Kodak Defendantshave offered , which Wolk has not r ebu t ted , i s t ha t the t r a ns f e r

of informat ion about an order from the KODAK Gal le ry websi te tothe fu l f i l lmen t vendor i s done e l e c t ron ic a l ly through anautomated computer system and t h a t a l l of the informat iond i sp layed on the KODAK Gallery websi te , inc luding the s imula t ionof produc ts conta in ing the Photobucket images, i s donee lec t ronica l ly . There i s no dispute t h a t any reproduc t ion ,d isp lay o r t ransmiss ion of the P l a i n t i f f ' s images by o r throughthe KODAK Gallery websi te i s an automated process with no humanin te rven t ion by any employee of th e Kodak Defendants . The fac tt ha t Wolk's images are copied in to product s imula t ions inadd i t ion to being t r ansmi t ted to fu l f i l lmen t vendors does notcons t i tu te a vo l i t i ona l ac t where th e copying i s automated. SeeDi Enters . Inc . v. Hotf i l e . , No. 11 20427-CIV JORDON,2011 WL 2899374, a t *5 (S.D. Fla . July 8, 2011) ("Final ly , th ep l a i n t i f f s contend t ha t they have al leged a v o l i t i o n a l ac tbecause they have leged t ha t hotf i le .com makes ad d i t i o n a lcopies once the copyrighted mate r i a l i s uploaded to the se rver .This argument too f a i l s , fo r cour t s have repeatedly held t ha tthe automated conduct of software, unaided by humanin te rven t ion , i s not ' v o l i t i o n a l . ' " ) . Furthermore, the d isp layof copyr ighted images on a defendant ' s websi te does not

41

http:///reader/full/hotfile.comhttp:///reader/full/hotfile.com


44/69

demonstra te vo l i t i on . See CoStar Inc. v. Inc . ,- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - -373 F.3d 544, 550 (4th Cir . 2004) (holding t ha t In te rne t se rv iceprovider d id not engage in vo l i t i ona l conduct s u f f i c i e n t fo rcopyright l i a b i l i t y where use r of se rv ice posted copyrightedimages t h a t were disp layed on de fendan t ' s websi te) (c i ted byCartoon Network, 536 F.3d a t 130 31) . Because the P l a i n t i f f hasfa i l ed to e s t a b l i s h any v o l i t i o n a l conduct, the Kodak Defendantsare not l i ab l e fo r d i r e c t infr ingement .

Because th e Kodak Defendants cannot be held l i ab l ed i r e c t in f r ingement , th e i s sues of whether they f a l l under th eDMCA'S "safe harbor" provis ion , whether t h e i r a l legedinf r ingement was "wi l l fu l " under th e s t a t u t e and whether Wolk i sen t i t l ed to damages p er work of a r t in f r inged need not bereached. Simi la r ly , al though th e Kodak Defendants di spu tewhether th e P l a i n t i f f has prope r ly as se r ted a cla im o f v icar iousl i a b i l i t y aga ins t Eastman Kodak, there i s no need to addresst h i s i s sue because th e P l a i n t i f f has not es tab l i shed l i a b i l i t yon the pa r t of e i t h e r of the Kodak Defendants .

B. The Pla in t i f f ' s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment AgainstPhotobucket Is Denied, And Photobucket 's Motion For SummaryJudgment Is Granted

42



45/69

There are f ive counts in the Complaint app l icab le toPhotobucket: Count I reques t ing a dec la ra to ry judgment t ha tPhotobucket has in f r inged on Wolkts copyr ights , Count I Ireques t ing a permanent in junc t ion prevent ing Photobucket fromcont inuing to in f r inge , Count I I I al leg ing con t r ibu to rycopyr ight inf r ingement , Count IV al leg ing v icar ious copyr igh tin f r ingement and Count V a l leg ing d i r e c t in f r ingement . OnSeptember 23, 2011, Photobucket f i l ed i t s motion fo r summaryjudgment with respect to a l l count s . In response, Wolk f i l edh er oppos i t ion to Photobucke t ' s motion as wel l as a cross-mot ionseeking summary judgment aga ins t Photobucket . For the reasonss ta ted below, Wolk's cross-mot ion fo r summary judgment f a i l s ,and Photobucke t ' s motion fo r summary judgment i s granted withre spec t to 1 count s .

1. Photobucket Cannot Be Held Liable Because I t Fal l sWithin The DNCA's "Safe Harbor"

Photobucket cannot be held l i ab l e fo r i n f r ing ing uponWolk's copyr ighted work because Photobucket f a l l s within theDMCA's "safe harbor ," thereby pro tec t ing Photobucket aga ins t theP l a i n t i f f ' s copyr ight inf r ingement aims.

43



46/69

A. Photobucket Meets The Threshold Requirements ToQuali fy For The DMCA's "Safe Harbor" Provis ions

To qua l i fy fo r th e "safe harbor" prov i s ions under th eDMCA, a par ty must meet c e r t a in t h re sho ld requirements ,inc lud ing t ha t the p a r ty (1) must be a "se rv ice provider" asdef ined by the s t a t u t e ; (2 ) must have adopted and reasonablyimplemented a po l icy fo r the t e rmina t ion in appropr i a t ec i rcumstances of users who are repea t i n f r i n g e r s ; and (3 ) mustnot i n t e r f e r e with s tandard t e chn ica l measures used by copyrightowners to i d e n t i fy o r p r o t ec t copyrighted works. Corbis- - - - - - - - " ~ v. Amazon. com, I n c . , 35 1 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1099 (W.D. Wash.2004) , over ru led on o th e r grounds, Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v.__ ~ _ I _ n _ t _ e _ r___c_t______~ _ . , 606 F.3d 612 (9 th Cir . 2010) i 10 Grp . ,Inc . v. Veoh Networks, In c . , 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1142 43 (N.D.Cal. 2008).

Photobucket meets t he app l i cab le de f in i t i on of a"service prov ider" under th e DMCA. The DMCA inc ludes twodef in i t ions of the term "service provider: / I

(A ) As used in subsec t ion (a ) , the term ' s e rv i c e prov ide r 'means an en t i t y of fe r ing th e t r an smi ss i o n , rou t ing , o rproviding of connect ions fo r d i g i t a l onl ine communications,between o r among poin t s s p ec i f i ed by a use r , of mate r i a l of

44



47/69

the use r ' s choosing, withou t modif ica t ion to the contentthe mat as sen t o r received .(B) As used in t h i s sec t ion , o the r than in subsect ion (a) ,the term ' s e rv i ce provider ' means a prov ider o f on l inese rv ices o r network access o r the opera to r o f f a c i l i t i e st he re for , and inc ludes an en t i ty descr ibed in subparagraph(A ) .

17 U.S.C. 512(k) (1) . Because Photobucket i s e l i g i b l e underthe "safe harbor" conta ined in 17 U.S.C. 512(c) , the broaderde f in i t i on inc luded in 17 U.S.C. 512(k) (1) (B) i s app l icab le .See 10 Grp. , 58 6 F. Supp. 2d a t 1143 n.7 . The DMCA's de f in i t i onof " se rv i ce provider ll i s intended to encompass a broad s e t ofIn te rne t e n t i t i e s . See Corbis , 351 F. Supp. 2d a t 1100 ("Thisde f i n i t i on encompasses a broad va r i e t y of In t e rne ta c t i v i t i e s . I ). Courts have found se rv ices s i m i l a r toPhotobucket , such as Youtube.com and Veoh.com, to be "serv iceproviders" under the DMCA. See Viacom I n t ' I , Inc . v . YouTube,Inc . r 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) i 10 Grp . , 58 6 F.Supp. 2d a t 1143. Because Photobucket a s i t e t h a t hos t sand al lows onl ine sha r ing of photos and a t the d i r e c t i onof use r s , Photobucket , l i ke YouTube.com o r Veoh.com , q u a l i f i e sas a " se rv i ce p rov ider ll under 512(k) (1) (B).

Photobucket has a l so adopted and reasonablyimplemented a po l icy fo r the terminat ion in appropr i a t e

45

http:///reader/full/Youtube.comhttp:///reader/full/Veoh.comhttp:///reader/full/YouTube.comhttp:///reader/full/Veoh.comhttp:///reader/full/Youtube.comhttp:///reader/full/Veoh.comhttp:///reader/full/YouTube.comhttp:///reader/full/Veoh.com


48/69

circumstances of use r s who a re repeat i n f r i nge r s . Pursuant to17 U.S.C. 512( i ) , t o qua l i fy a sa fe harbor , a serviceprovider must demonstra te t h a t it has uadopted and reasonablyimplemented, and informs subscr ibes and account holders of theserv ice provider ' s system o r network o f , a pol icy t ha t providesfo r t e rminat ion in appropr ia te circumstances of subsc r ibe r sand account holders of the ce provider ' s system or networkwho are repeat in f r ingers . / I 17 U.S.C. 512( i) (1) (A); see a lsoPer fec t 10, Inc . v. CCBill LLC, 48 8 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir .2007). To f u l f i l l the requirements of 17 U.S.C. 512( i ) , aserv ice provider must (i) adopt a po l icy t h a t provides fo r theterminat ion of se rv ice access fo r repeat copyr ight i n f r i nge r s ;( i i ) inform users of the se rv ice po l icy ; and ( i i i ) implement th epo l icy in a reasonable manner. Corbis , 351 F. Supp. 2d a t 1100jsee a l so Pe r fec t 10, 488 F.3d a t 1109 15.

In opposi t ion papers , Wolk has a l leged t ha tPhotobucket does not t e rminate repeat in f r inger s and t h a tPhotobucket has merely "given 1 se rv ice to t h i s and c rea ted a

paper po l icy it does not enforce./I The evidence , however,es t ab l i shes t h a t Photobucket has developed a pol i cy under whichcopyright holders can submit a take-down no t ice and t h a t t h i spo l icy was made ava i l ab le to the publ ic on Photobucket ' s

46



49/69

websi te . When Photobucket received Wolk's take-down not i ces ,both those t ha t inc luded URLs as wel l as those t h a t d id not ,Photobucket ac t ed to remove the i n f r ing ing mat As such,the evidence presented i nd ica t e s t h a t Photobucket has f u l f i l l e dthe requ i remen ts of 17 U.S.C. 512( i ) , having adopted, informedusers of and reasonably implemented a po l icy of t e rminat inguse r s who r epea t ed ly in f r inge copyr igh t s .

Photobucket a l so meets the t h i rd th resholdqua l i f i ca t i on , as "accommodates and does not i n t e r f e re withs tandard t echni measures ." 17 U.S.C. 512 (i) (1) (B). Asdescr ibed by the Cour t in 10 Group, "s tandard t echn ica lmeasures" are ined as " t echn ica l measures t h a t a re used bycopyr ight owners to iden t i fy or pro t e c t copyr ighted works" andwhich have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus ofcopyr ight owners and se rv ice providers an open, f a i r ,vo lun ta ry , m ul t i indust ry s tandards , a re ava i l ab le toany person on reasonable and nondisc r imina tory te rms and do no timpose s ubs t a n t i a l cos t s on se rv ice providers o r s ubs t a n t i a l

burdens on t h e i r systems or networks . See 10 Grp. , 586 F. Supp.2d a t 1142 n .6 .

47



50/69

Wolk argues t ha t , because Photobucket af fo rds i t susers computer t o o l s t h a t al low use rs to o b l i t e r a t e , hide o rcrop ou t the copyright watermarks on th e e lec t ron ic imagesuploaded, Photobucket i s prec luded using th e DMCA "sa feharbor.{{ Wolkfs con ten t ion i s t h a t Photobucket has developedthese too l s because, if use rs could no t remove th e watermark,Photobucket ts business would su f f e r because those use rs who seekcopyr igh t a r t and photos would be unable to obta in them fo rf ree . However f th e P l a i n t i f f does not t h a t Photobucketadv i ses o r encourages i t s use rs to use th e photo ed i t ing too l sto circumvent the copyr igh t . The f a c t t h a t watermarksappear sugges t s t ha t Photobucket does, indeed t accommodate"standard t e chn ica l measures . 1I While th e P l a i n t i f f argues t h a tth e ed i t ing sof tware " i n t e r f e re [ s ] with s tandard techn ica lmeasures t {{ i s not Photobucket t b ut r a t h e r user s , who woulduse th e ed i t ing t o o l s to a t tempt to ci rcumvent copyr igh tpro tec t ion measures t h a t were a l ready on th e s i t e . AccordinglYfthe ed i t i n g t oo l s Photobucket prov ides do no t d i s q u a l i it from"sa fe harbor{{ e l i g i b i l i t y .

B. Photobuoket I s Sheltered From Liabi l i ty Under17 U.S.C. 512(0)

48



51/69

Once the threshold requirements are met, a par ty maybe e l i g i b l e fo r one o r more of the four "safe harbor" prov i s ions

codif ied a t 17 U.S.C. 512(a) through 512(d) . In t h i s case ,the most appl icable "safe harbor" i s t ha t inc luded in 17 U.S.C.512 (c) :

(c) Infor.mation res iding on systems or networks a tdirect ion o f users .

(1 ) In general . A se rv ice prov ide r s ha l l not be l i ab l efo r monetary r e l i e f , o r, except as provided insubsec t ion ( j ) , fo r in junc t ive o r o th e r equ i tab ler e l i e f , fo r inf r ingement of copyr igh t by reason of thes to rage a t the d i rec t ion of a use r of mater i t h a tr es ides on a system o r network con t ro l l ed o r opera tedby o r fo r the se rv ice provider , i f the se rv iceprov ide r -

(A) ( i) does not have ac tua l knowledge t h a t themater ia l o r an ac t i v i t y using the mater ia l on thesystem o r network i s i n f r ing ing ;( i i ) in the absence of such ac tua l knowledge, i s notaware of fac t s or circumstances fo r which in f r ing ingac t i v i t y i s apparent ; o r( i i i ) upon obta in ing such knowledge or awareness,ac t s expedi t ious ly to remove, o r d isab le access to ,the mater ia l ;(B ) does not rece ive a f inanc ia l b e n e f i t d i rec t l ya t t r i bu t ab l e to the in fr inging ac t i v i t y , in a casein which th e se rv ice prov ide r has the r i gh t anda b i l i t y to con t ro l such ac t i v i t y ; and(C) upon no t i f i c a t i on of cla imed in f r ingement asdescribed in paragraph (3), responds exped i t ious lyto remove, o r d isab le access to , the mate r ia l t ha t

49



52/69

i s claimed to be in fr inging or to be the subject ofi n f r ing ing ac t i v i t y .

(2 ) Designated agent . The l im i t a t i ons on l i a b i l i t yes tab l i shed in t h i s sub jec t ion apply to a se rv iceprovider only i f the se rv ice prov ide r has des igna tedan agent to rece ive no t i f i c a t i ons cla imedinf r ingement descr ibed in paragraph (3), by makingava i lab le through i t s se rv ice , inc luding on i t swebsi te in a loca t ion acces s ib le to th e pub l ic , and byproviding to th e Copyright Office , s ubs t a n t i a l l yfol lowing informat ion:

(A) the name, address , phone number, and e lec t ron icmail address of the agen t .(B) Other contac t informat ion which the Regis te r ofCopyrights may deem appropr ia te .

The Regis te r of Copyrights s ha l l maintain a cur ren td i rec to ry of agents ava i lab le to the publ ic forinspec t ion , including through th e In te rne t , i n bothe lec t ron ic and hard copy formats , and may r equ i repayment of a fee by se rv ice prov ide rs to cover thecos t s of main ta in ing the d i rec to ry .

Here, photobucket has f i l l e d a l l the s t a tu to ry condi t ionsnecessary to be she l t e red from l i a b i l i t y .

i. Photobucket Did Not Have Actual Knowledge OfThe Infr ing ing Act iv i ty , Was Not Aware OfAny Facts From Which Infr ing ing Act iv i ty WasApparent And Expedi t ious ly RemovedInfringing Material When I t ObtainedSuf f i c i ent Information

As descr ibed in the s t a t u t e above, to meet thee l i g i b i l i t y requirements o f th e 17 U.S.C. 512(c) "safe harbor"

50



53/69

provis ion , Photobucket must show, i n t e r a l i a , t ha t it d id nothave ac tua l knowledge t ha t the mater ia l o r an ac t ty using thema te r i a l on the system o r network i s in fr inging and was notaware of t s o r c i rcumstances from which i n f r ing ing ac t i v i t yi s apparent . Where a se rv ice prov ide r does obta in e i t h e r ac tua lo r apparent knowledge, it may still enjoy th e "safe harbor" i fit ac t s expedi t ious ly to remove or d i sab le access toin f r ing ing a l .

There i s no evidence t ha t Photobucket had ac tua l o rcons t ruct ive knowledge o f th e copyr ight inf r ingement wolka l l eges . To be DMCA-compliant so as to cons t i tu te no t ices u f f i c i e n t to give knowledge to a se rv ice prov ide r o finfr ingement , th e no t ice a copyr ight owner submits to these rv ice provider must inc lude s ix elements : (1 ) a phys ica l o re lec t ron ic s ignature of a person au thor i to ac t on beha l fth e owner of an exc ive r i gh t t ha t i s l egedly in f r inged ; (2)i de n t i f i c a t i on of the copyr ighted work claimed to have beeninf r inged; (3 ) i de n t i f i c a t i on of the mater ia l t ha t i s claimed to

be in f r ing ing o r to be sub jec t of i n f r ing ing ac t iv i ty andt ha t i s to be removed o r access to which i s to d isabled , andinformat ion reasonably s u f f i c i e n t to permit se rv ice providerto loca te the mater ia l i (4) informat ion reasonably s u f f i c i e n t to

51



54/69

permit th e serv ice provider to contac t the complaining par tYi(5) a s ta tement t ha t th e complaining par ty has a good thbe l i e f tha t use of the mater ia l in th e manner complained i snot author ized by th e copyr igh t owner, i t s agent , o r th e lawiand (6) a s tatement t ha t th e informat ion in the no t i f i ca t i on i saccura te , and under penal ty of per ju ry , t ha t th e complainingpar ty i s author ized to ac t on beha l f of the copyr igh t owner.See 17 U.S.C. 512(c) (3) i see also Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc . ,165 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

As descr ibed above, pr i o r to th e commencement of t h i sl i t i g a t i o n , Wolk Photobucket with f i f t een no t ices ofth e inf r ingement f works. Eleven of theseno t ices were not DMCA-compliant. Wolk argues t ha t these f i f t eennot ices se rve as DMCA-compliant no t ice of any and a l l o therun iden t i f i ed a l l eged ringements of these nine works t ha t mayappear on the Photobucket s e, thereby p rov id ing Photobucketwith the requis i t e knowledge necessary to r equ i re it to removethose al leged infr ingements . a i n t i f f , however, i si ncor rec t . Sect ion 512(c) (3) (A) ( i i i ) and 512(c) (3 ) (A) (v)require a DMCA-compliant take-down not to provideU[i ]den t i f i ca t ion of the mater ia l i s cla imed to bein f r ing ing o r to be the sub jec t ac t iv i ty and t ha t

52



55/69

i s to be removed o r access to which i s to be di sab led t andin fo rmat ion reasonably s u f f i c i e n t to permi t th e se rv ice prov ide rto loca te th e mater ia l " and a "sta tement t h a t th e compla iningp a r ty has a good f a i t h be l i e f t h a t th e use o f th e mater i inthe manner complained i s not au thor ized by th e copyr igh towner, i t s agentt o r law. II 17 U.S.C. 512 (c ) (3) (A) ( i i i ) ,512 (c) (3 ) (A) (v ) . "An example of such s u f f i c i e n t in fo rmat ionwould be a copy or desc r ip t ion o f th e a l leged ly r ing ingmater ia l and th e so led ' uniform resource l o c a t o r ' (URL)( i . e . web s i t e address) which a l leged ly con ta in f r ing ingmate r i a l . 1I Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d a t 521. In Viacom, th eCour t r e jec ted th e p l a i n t i f f s ' complain t t h a t th e ceprov ider t YouTube t "remove[d] only the sp e c i f i c ip s i de n t i f i e din DMCA no t ices t and no t o t h e r c l i p s which th e sameworks. II Id . a t 528. The same reason ing app l ies here :Photobucket cannot be held l i ab l e fo r its l u r e to removeimages fo r which th e P l a i n t i f f fa i l ed to prov ide p roper no t ice .

though wolk advocates fo r a tern where one not i ceo f in f r ingement would apply to a l l i n s t ances of t h a t imageappear ing on th e webs i te t it would be i r r e s p o n s ib l e fo rPhotobucket to assume in f r ingement th e way th e P l a i n t i f fdesc r ibes . Because Wolk and o ther copyr igh t ho lders r e t a in the

53



56/69

I

r i gh t to l i cense t h e i r work, a pol icy under which Photobucketassumes inf r ingement could r e su l t Photobucket unlawful lyblocking others from uploading images to which they hold va l id

Notices t ha t do not i d e n t i the spec i f ic locat ion ofth e leged infr ingement are not su f f i c i en t to confer "ac tua lknowl on the se rv ice provider . See UMG Recordings, Inc . v.Veoh Networks In c . , 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1108 09 (C.D. Cal .2009) (" I f merely hos t ing user con t r ibu t mate r ia l capable ofcopyr ight pro tec t ion were enough to impute ac tu a l knowledge to ase rv ice provider , the sec t ion 512(c) harbor would be a deadl e t t e r vas t por t ions of content on the i n t e rne t aree l i g i b l e copyr igh t pro tec t ion . H); Hendrickson, 165 F. Supp.2d a t 1082 ("[DMCA] express ly provides tha t i f th e copyr igh tho lder ' s at tempted no t i f i c a t i on f a i l s to 'comply s ubs t a n t i a l l y 'with the elements of no t i f i c a t i on descr ibed subsec t ion(c) (3) , t ha t no t i f i c a t i on s ha l l not be considered wheneva lua t ing whether the serv ice provider had ac o rcons t ruct ive knowl of th e in f r ing ing ac t iv i ty ." ) .

In those circumstances where Wolk va l id ly no t i f i e dPhotobucket of ac t i v i t y , it i s undisputedPhotobucket has promptly to take down themater ia l in an expedi t ious manner. Even in in s tances where

54



57/69

no t ices were non-compliant , Photobucket ac t ed to remove th emate r ia l .

Accordingly , because Photobucket d id no t haveknowledge t ha t t he mate r i a l o r an ac t iv i t y us ing the mate r ia l onth e system o r network was in f r ing ing , was no t aware of f a c t s orc i rcumstances from which i n f r ing ing a c t i v i t y i s apparent andacted expedi t iously to remove in f r ing ing mate r

wolk v photobucket dismissal

Documents