March 28, 2019
Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Margaret A. Esquenet
Can removing an author’s identifying information when posting the author’s work on Instagram constitute copyright infringement? Yes, the Northern District of California said recently.
One of the authors who claimed to be affected, Nita Batra, filed a class action suit against POPSUGAR Inc., on behalf of “persons with large numbers of followers on social media” (also known as “influencers”). POPSUGAR is an American media and technology company that runs a pop culture blog. According to Batra, POPSUGAR had “copied thousands of influencers’ Instagram images” while removing both the sidebar on the images, which contained identifying information, and the links that allowed the authors to monetize their images. POPSUGAR’s actions, Batra alleged, deprived the authors of the profits they should have gotten when users clicked through the images and bought something, allowing POPSUGAR to reap the profits instead.
POPSUGAR moved to dismiss all six of Batra’s claims against it, but the district court rejected each of its arguments and denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety. For example, in seeking to dismiss Batra’s first claim—that POPSUGAR violated the Digital Media Copyright Act—POPSUGAR contended that Batra’s allegations were insufficient both because she failed to identify the removed copyright management information (“CMI”) and also because she failed to plead that POPSUGAR possessed the requisite mental state to violate the statute, 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), which requires the removal or alteration of CMI to be done “intentionally.” But the court disagreed. Instead, it found that the Instagram sidebar contained identifying information that would “plausibly” constitute CMI under § 1202(c) and also that the “plausible inference” from the complaint was that POPSUGAR knowingly removed the Instagram sidebar in an effort to conceal its infringement of Batra’s photographs.
The court also rejected POPSUGAR’s attempt to dismiss of Batra’s second claim—that POPSUGAR committed copyright infringement. POPSUGAR argued that Batra’s claim was defective because she failed to identify the specific photographs at issue. The court said that at the pleadings stage, however, Batra was not required to allege specific copyright registration information but instead merely had to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for damages and fees.
The court then addressed, and rejected, POPSUGAR’s contention that three of Batra’s other claims—misappropriation of Batra’s likeness, intentional interference with contract, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law violations—were preempted by Copyright Act. In particular, the court found that because Batra’s misappropriation claim was not based exclusively on the publication of the photographs at issue, but involved information outside the photographs, it was not preempted by the Copyright Act. For much the same reason, the court held that because the subject matter of the contract-interference and unfair-competition claims was not limited to the photographs but also included the removal of monetized links as a key component, these claims were similarly not preempted.
Finally, the court rejected POPSUGAR’s contention that Batra’s final claim, which alleged a violation of the Lanham Act, should be dismissed because there was no misleading representation regarding the end products sold to a consumer. POPSUGAR had relied on cases holding that there was no confusion regarding the origin of goods when the goods both parties sold were manufactured by the same source. The court, however, distinguished those cases on the ground that neither POPSUGAR nor Batra was a retailer of the goods, and the issue was not whether POPSUGAR’s actions confused the consumer about the origin of the goods but whether its use of the images resulted in the impression that Batra endorsed or was otherwise affiliated with POPSUGAR’s service. Therefore, Batra’s complaint was sufficient to allege a Lanham Act violation.
The case is Batra v. POPSUGAR Inc., 2019 WL 482492, No. 18-cv-03752-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018).
Copyright © 2019 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.