• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Knowingly Removing Photographer’s Credit Costs Buzzfeed Under DMCA

September 23, 2020

By Brooke M. Wilner

Edited by Margaret A. Esquenet

Freelance photographer Gregory Mango regularly licenses his photographs to newspapers.  One of those photographs concerned Raymond Parker, a main figure in a discrimination lawsuit filed against the City of New York.  The photograph was licensed to the New York Post, which published it in an article in January 2017.  Mango was given a “gutter credit”: attribution below the photograph.

 

A few months later, BuzzFeed published an article on the discrimination lawsuit, using the same photograph.  But BuzzFeed did not ask for permission to use the photograph, Mango had not licensed it to BuzzFeed, and—most costly for BuzzFeed—Mango was not given any credit.  Instead, gutter credit was given to Raymond Parker’s law firm, Fisher & Taubenfeld. 

Mango sued BuzzFeed, alleging copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and removal or alteration of copyright management information (“CMI”) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  BuzzFeed stipulated to liability for copyright infringement.  The district court found BuzzFeed liable on the DMCA claim and awarded Mango statutory damages on both claims.  BuzzFeed appealed.

On appeal, BuzzFeed argued that it could not be liable under the DMCA because it did not know or have reason to know that its conduct would lead to future third-party infringement.  This argument was based in the statutory language of the DMCA, which requires “double scienter”: first, the defendant must have actual knowledge that CMI “has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law”; second, the defendant must know or have reason to know that distributing the copyrighted material without CMI “will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement.” 17 U.S.C. § 1202.  Even if it had actual knowledge that the CMI had been removed without authority, BuzzFeed argued, it did not have, nor did it have any reason to have, knowledge that a third party would ultimately commit copyright infringement because of that removal.

The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that the statutory language did not require knowledge of third-party infringement to satisfy the second scienter element.  After all, the DMCA requires only knowledge that the conduct will conceal “an infringement”—not necessarily a third-party infringement.  Instead, the Court held, it is enough that a defendant is aware that distributing copyrighted material without proper CMI will conceal his own infringement.  In other words, the second scienter element encompasses an infringement that will, upon distribution, conceal that particular act of infringement. 

By distributing Mango’s photograph knowing that the gutter credit had been removed and replaced with erroneous CMI, BuzzFeed satisfied the first scienter element, the Second Circuit held.  And, the Court held, by distributing the photograph with false attribution, BuzzFeed wrongfully implied it had permission to publish it, therefore concealing its own infringement—and satisfying the second scienter element.  The Second Circuit thus affirmed the district court’s award of statutory damages for both copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and removal or alteration of CMI under the DMCA.

The decision is Mango v. Buzzfeed, Inc., No. 19-446-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2020).

Tags

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Copyright Act

Related Practices

Copyright

Contacts

Brooke M. Wilner
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6454
Email
Margaret_Esquenet
Margaret A. Esquenet
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4007
Email

Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Patent Claim and Specification Drafting and Prosecution

March 11, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Patent Year in Review: Key Decisions, Trends, and Strategies

February 25, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Sanofi, Vanda, and GSK, a New Year Voyage through the Land of Induced Infringement

January 21, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Optimizing Enforceable Patent Claim Scope, Minimizing Costs for Global Patent Portfolios

January 19, 2021

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Disavowal of Infringement Case Eliminates Article III Standing for Appeal of IPR

January 13, 2021

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

TTAB KO’s Mayweather PAST PRESENT FUTURE Trademark Application

January 13, 2021

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure

January 12, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

Balancing Cost and Enforcement

January 11, 2021

European IP Blog

Balancing Cost & Enforcement

January 11, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP