Posts Tagged ‘FTC’

What’s Happening Now in Technology, Arts, Small Business & Contracts – November 2015

November 2, 2015

Arts News

Copyrights and Fair Use: Lenz v. Universal Music Group, et. al.

In this appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit’s panel held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) requires copyright holders to consider “fair use” before sending a takedown notification. If a copyright holder fails to do this, it introduces a triable issue regarding whether the alleged infringing use was not in accordance with the law. The copyright owner’s determination whether the use is fair use or not is subjective. This subjective “good faith belief” test required under the DMCA can be determined under two analysis methods: 1) the actual knowledge theory and 2) the willful blindness doctrine, both of which the 9th Circuit held could be used under the DMCA.

Actual knowledge theory says that the there must be some actual knowledge of the misrepresentation on the part of the copyright holder. Generally, in order to be held liable for any damages due to misrepresentation, the court will look to whether the person making the statement was negligent in making false statements. The distinction between this and fraud is that to be held liable for fraud, the speaker must have intended that there be reliance on the false statement made.

The “willful blindness doctrine” means that the speaker materially misrepresented that it had a good faith belief that the offending activity was not a fair use. The plaintiff would have to show that the defendants subjectively believed that the use of the copyright protected work constituted fair use. The lower court in this case determined that Lenz could proceed under the actual knowledge theory, but not the blindness doctrine because “because she did not show that the defendants subjectively believed there was a high probability that the video constituted fair use.”

Background: On July 24, 2007, Stephanie Lenz filed a lawsuit under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)—part of the DMCA against Universal Music Corp. (“UMG”) and its subsidiaries. She claimed that UMG misrepresented in its takedown notification that her 29 second video containing Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” and to which her children danced, was not lawful. The court determined that “the statute requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.

Lenz uploaded her video named “Let’s Go Crazy #1” to YouTube in 2007. UMG monitors YouTube videos and one of its employees found Lenz’s video. The employee checked to see if the video “embodied a Prince composition” and made “significant use of . . . the composition, specifically if the song was recognizable, was in a significant portion of the video or was the focus of the video.” If the song is the focus of the video, UMG’s procedure required that they notify YouTube to take it down. The procedures did not explicitly say that UMG considered application of the fair use doctrine. The notice included a good faith statement which: “We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”

YouTube took down the video, and Lenz protested. YouTube brought the protest to UMG’s attention and UMG responded that Lenz did not acknowledge that her statement was made under penalty of perjury and that there was no record that YouTube or Lenz had licenses to use the song. Lenz protested again, and YouTube reinstated the video. Lenz brought a lawsuit regarding UMG’s alleged misrepresentation under 512(f), among other reasons, including tortuous interference. Only the misrepresentation claim was before the Ninth Circuit for this decision.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, service providers, such as YouTube, can avoid copyright infringement claims under certain conditions. Infringement liability can be avoided if the service provider disables or removes the alleged infringing content “expeditiously.” DMCA sets forth the copyright holder’s requirements to support removal: 1) identification of the copyrighted work, 2) identification of the allegedly infringing material, and, 3) a “good faith” statement regarding the copyright holder’s belief that the infringing use was not authorized by the copyright owner, an agent, or the law. If a copyright owner misuses the takedown notice requirements, the owner is subject to liability under 512(f) misrepresentation.

Fair use analysis was codified in the Copyright Act in 1976, under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Fair use considerations are:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Universal argued that fair use is a “defense” to otherwise infringing activity, e.g., unless proven otherwise, any use of copyright protected works without permission is an infringement. This court stated that fair use is a right, and not an excuse for otherwise infringing content. However, the court quoted Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1542 n.22 (11th Cir. 1996) which said: “Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.”

The court provided some guidance as to how a copyright holder could use computer programs to identify content which could be subject to a takedown notice and determine fair use: “For example, consideration of fair use may be sufficient if copyright holders utilize computer programs that automatically identify for takedown notifications content where: “(1) the video track matches the video track of a copyrighted work submitted by a content owner; (2) the audio track matches the audio track of that same copyrighted work; and (3) nearly the entirety . . . is comprised of a single copyrighted work.” Brief for The Org. for Transformative Works, Public Knowledge & Int’l Documentary Ass’n as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellee at 29–30 n.8 (citing the Electronic Frontier Foundation website (link unavailable)).” [CMG link here.]

The court concluded, however, that copyright holders must consider fair use before submitting takedown notices under the DMCA and that the plaintiff, Lenz, could move forward at trial under the actual knowledge theory regarding plaintiff’s misrepresentation allegation. In addition, the plaintiff could seek nominal damages for injuries due to the misrepresentation, if proved.

In my opinion, there are two things worth noting regarding this decision. First, Lenz had filed a tortuous interference claim which was dismissed. In her second amended complaint, only misrepresentation under § 512(f) was the only claim. The tortuous interference with her contract with YouTube claim suggested that the plaintiff’s insistence in reposting the video had a purpose other than making available an innocent video about her children. Indeed, how many children [49,659,075 YouTube views as of October 22, 2015] have been launched to fame after videos were posted on YouTube and subsequently interviewed by television personalities [100,795,145 YouTube views as of October 22, 2015] or had the opportunity to meet the musicians or vocalists the children were imitating? Second, M. Smith, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, had the better analytical approach to this case: “In sum, I would hold that parties must individually consider whether a work is a fair use before representing that the work is infringing in a takedown notice. If they do not, and the work is a non-infringing fair use, they are subject to liability for knowingly misrepresenting that the work is infringing.”

If you have copyright protected work which you want to monitor online, Gayton Law can help you with developing policies and procedures for your businesses’ infringement monitoring activities.

Contracts

Terms of Use and Arbitration Clauses. Berkson,et. al. v.Gogo LLC and Gogo, Inc. This consumer fraud case came before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The class action plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, Gogo LLC and Gogo, Inc., fraudulently charged Wi-Fi services on air flights, specifically, that the defendants “improperly increased their sales and profits by misleading customers into purchasing a service that charged a customer’s credit card, on an automatically-renewing continuing monthly basis, without adequate notice or consent.” According to the complaint filed for this case, between 2008 and 2012, the defendants fraudulently advertised that purchasers were only buying single one month subscription to the Wi-Fi service, but the defendants were making recurring charges on the plaintiffs’ credit cards. The defendants said that the plaintiffs agreed to the recurring charges and they also agreed to a mandatory arbitration clause. The named plaintiffs, representing a nationwide class, claimed that the defendants committed “common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law unjust enrichment, and violation of various consumer protection statutes.” On April 8, 2015, the court made decisions on defendants’ procedural motions, specifically, motions to (1) transfer venue; (2) compel arbitration; and (3) dismiss for lack of standing.

The motions to transfer venue and compel arbitration was based on Gogo’s terms of use. Plaintiffs’ claim that Gogo’s terms and conditions were hidden, and, therefore, unenforceable. Gogo is a dominant player in the in-flight Wi-Fi market, where more than 80% of North American flights use Gogo’s services. Gogo’s website advertised a daily rate of $10 and a monthly rate of about $40. Plaintiffs used Gogo’s services during air plane flights. The plaintiffs’ claimed that there was nothing to indicate that if they registered for the monthly service that they would be billed on a recurring basis. The service was only canceled once the subscribers noticed the fee and contacted Gogo.

The court determined that because the terms and conditions were hidden and users were not given sufficient notice to inquire about the terms (which included language regarding the recurring fee and the arbitration clause) the court denied the defendants’ motions to transfer venue and compel arbitration. The defendant’s motion regarding standing stated that the plaintiffs had not shown the particularized and concrete injuries required to meet the requirements to bring a lawsuit. The court found that just because one plaintiff was reimbursed by a credit card company for the charges when Gogo refused to do so and that another was reimbursed when that plaintiff informed Gogo of the class action lawsuit. The standing motion was also denied.

Although this case was before a New York federal district court, the issues it addresses are nationwide. More and more transactions are being conducted online. This case is instructive with regard to providing transparency about your business’s online contract terms and conditions. Contact Gayton Law to ensure that your online agreements are in compliance with your jurisdiction’s click-wrap, sign-in-wrap and browse-wrap laws.

What’s New at Gayton Law

Posts

The FTC’s Supreme Court Victory: A Rare Win for Both Libertarians and Regulators. Guest post by Theodore A. Gebhard, J.D., Ph.D.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent Supreme Court victory in the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (NCSB or Board) case brought together in common cause both economic libertarians and federal antitrust regulators — groups often at odds with each other respecting important philosophical and policy principles. The FTC’s win, however, gave both groups much reason to celebrate.

See the rest of the post here.

Even in a Knowledge-Driven Economy – Things are Still Kings by Cynthia M. Gayton, Esq. posted on Vienna Woods Law & Economics blog.

From September 30 – October 1 of this year, I attended a conference entitled “The IP Platform: Supporting Inspiration and Innovation” that was sponsored by George Mason University School of Law’s Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property.  The extensive and impressive speaker’s list included a keynote speech by David Kappos, law professors from around the country, and innovators of all stripes.

See the rest of the post here.

Programs and Publications

Cynthia Gayton co-created a 3-part workshop, the third of which was held on Saturday, October 24, entitled “Theseus’ Paradox” at The George Washington University’s Alexandria campus. This workshop focused on strategies to manage innovation.

Learn more about the program here.

Caroline Norbury was a featured guest speaker at the second National Creative Economy Summit. Cynthia Gayton had the distinct honor and privilege of interviewing her at DC’s own WLVS Studios on October 6, 2015. Watch the interview here.

The “Guide to Creating and Protecting Fictional Characters” Second Edition by Cynthia Gayton was released in May 2014 and is now available for the Kindle.

Legal Aspects of Engineering. 9th edition by Cynthia Gayton is available through the publisher, Kendall-Hunt publishers and on Amazon.com. This book is used in several engineering courses and is a useful reference for anyone interested in contracting, intellectual property, engineering practice, and other general legal issues.

The information contained in this newsletter is for general guidance on matters of general interest only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on specific facts. The information contained in this newsletter should not be construed as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. Certain links in this newsletter connect to other websites maintained by third parties over whom Gayton Law has no control. Gayton Law makes no representations as to the accuracy or any other aspect of information contained in other websites.

© 2015 Gayton Law

“The FTC’s Supreme Court Victory: A Rare Win for Both Libertarians and Regulators” Guest Post by Theodore A. Gebhard

April 1, 2015

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent Supreme Court victory in the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (NCSB or Board) case brought together in common cause both economic libertarians and federal antitrust regulators — groups often at odds with each other respecting important philosophical and policy principles. The FTC’s win, however, gave both groups much reason to celebrate.

The question before the Court was whether unilateral anticompetitive actions of the NCSB, a state-created body, were immune from antitrust law under the “state action” doctrine. The state action doctrine arises from Parker v. Brown, a 1943 Supreme Court decision that sought to reconcile the Sherman Antitrust Act with the constitutional principle of federalism. Federalism is the idea that the U.S. Constitution recognizes both national and state government sovereignty by giving certain limited powers to the national government but reserving other powers to the individual states.

Because the Constitution is the highest law and therefore always trumps statutes, the Court carved out immunity from the Sherman Act for anticompetitive actions of states acting in their sovereign capacity, which includes regulating private actors in a way that restricts competition. In 1980 the Court extended this carve out to include the anticompetitive actions of non-sovereign bodies upon a showing that the actions were the result of clearly articulated state policy and were actively supervised by the state. (See, Cal. Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.) The active supervision requirement ensures that the anticompetitive consequences are only those that the state has deliberately chosen to tolerate in exchange for other public policy goals.

The NCSB was established by the North Carolina Dental Act to be “the agency of the State for the regulation of the practice of dentistry.” In that capacity, the NCSB has authority to administer the licensing of dentists and to file suit to enjoin the unlawful practice of dentistry. Starting in 2006, the NCSB began to send strongly worded cease and desist letters to non-dentist providers of teeth whitening services. People in this occupation grew in numbers in North Carolina – as well as other states — as the popularity of these services increased over a period of years. Often the non-dentist providers are simply individual entrepreneurs operating out of kiosks in shopping malls and similar venues. Licensed dentists also provide teeth whitening services, but typically at substantially higher fees.

Significantly, the N.C. Dental Act is silent with respect to whether teeth whitening constitutes the practice of dentistry. Nonetheless, the NCSB determined that it was, though without hearing or comment and without any independent confirmation by any other state official. In so doing, the Board found that the non-dentists were unlawfully practicing dentistry. Instead of obtaining a judicial order to enjoin the non-dentists as prescribed by statute, however, the NCSB sent out cease and desist letters, which contained strong language including a warning that the non-dentist teeth whiteners were engaging in a criminal act. The letters effectively stopped the provision of teeth whitening services by non-dentists.

In 2010 the FTC sued the Board on antitrust grounds. In response, the NCSB asserted that it was entitled to immunity under the state action doctrine. The FTC rejected that claim and in an administrative hearing ruled that the cease and desist letters constituted unlawful concerted action to exclude non-dentist teeth whiteners from the North Carolina market for such services. The FTC further found that that this exclusion resulted in actual anticompetitive effects in the form of less consumer choice and higher prices. The Commission then ordered the NCSB to stop issuing cease and desist letters to non-dentist providers of teeth whitening services without first obtaining a judicial order.

Key to the FTC’s antitrust finding was that, under the N.C. Dental Act, the majority of NCSB members must be practicing dentists elected to the Board by the community of N.C. licensed dentists. Moreover, throughout the relevant period, most, if not all, of the dentist members of the NCSB performed teeth whitening in their respective practices. In addition, the Board’s actions came after it received several complaints from licensed dentists about the competition from non-dentists teeth whiteners and the lower fees that these providers charged. Only a few dentists suggested that teeth whitening by non-dentists might be harmful to customers. The FTC found the validity of such public health claims tenuous.

The NCSB appealed the FTC’s rejection of its state action defense. The appeal reached the Supreme Court in 2014, and in an opinion handed down last February, the Court held that, under the record facts, the NCSB does not have antitrust immunity. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that, although the NCSB is a creature of the state and could properly be labeled a state agency, it is nonetheless a non-sovereign body and thus subject to the active supervision requirement for antitrust immunity to obtain. This requirement was not satisfied. (Not at issue was whether the state had a clearly articulated policy to regulate the practice of dentistry. All parties stipulated to this factor.)

The Court’s finding that the NCSB is a non-sovereign body is the key to the decision, and rightly focuses on substance over form. In particular, the Court focused on the fact that the NCSB is majority-controlled by active market participants and that its decisions in this case were unsupervised by any state government officials. Given these circumstances, the Court found there to be a high risk that Board decisions were and are influenced by self-interest instead of public welfare. When this risk is present, it trumps any formal label given by a state to a regulatory body. The Court specifically held that a “state board on which a controlling number of decision makers are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates must satisfy [the] active supervision requirement in order to invoke state action antitrust immunity.”

The practical result of this holding is that the FTC’s finding of illegal anticompetitive conduct stands. This outcome will no doubt yield important benefits to North Carolina citizens. Teeth whitening entrepreneurs can seek to re-enter the market, and consumers of those services will enjoy lower fees resulting from the increased competition. These will be tangible, observable benefits.

Critically, however, the Court’s holding also has important legal and policy implications beyond North Carolina. States will have to re-evaluate their regulatory boards and account for the fact that giving unsupervised control over who is qualified to compete to boards comprised of members whose incomes depend on those decisions may not produce good outcomes. Going forward, states must give greater care not only to establishing such boards, but also to overseeing their decisions. Decisions made behind merely the facade of a state-created agency will be insufficient for a board to obtain state action immunity.

Additionally, the Court’s holding recognizes that license requirements that do not rest on firm evidence of a risk to public health absent licensure serve not only to protect incumbents from healthy competition, but unnecessarily infringe on basic economic liberty and the right to earn a living. As such, the holding implicitly elevates economic liberty to a position as prominent as the antitrust concern. In so doing, the holding is an important victory for economic libertarians, just as it is for antitrust enforcers. It is a rare example of an instance when groups with economic philosophies that often diverge can come together in common celebration. A great win for both.

Theodore A. Gebhard is a law & economics consultant. He advises attorneys on the effective use and rebuttal of economic and econometric evidence in advocacy proceedings. Mr. Gebhard holds a Ph.D. in economics as well as a J.D. During his career, he spent seven years as an antitrust economist with the Justice Department and ten years as a senior antitrust attorney with the Federal Trade Commission. Nothing in this article is purported to be legal advice. You can contact the author at theodore.gebhard@aol.com.