February 18, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Margaret A. Esquenet
“Winning isn’t normal.” That’s the titular quote from author Keith F. Bell’s sports psychology book, the beginning of the book’s most notable passage, and part of a tweet initially posted by a third party and retweeted by Joshua Lifrak, director of the Chicago Cubs’ Mental Skills Program. Based on that retweet, Dr. Bell brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Mr. Lifrak and the Chicago Cubs. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss Dr. Bell’s complaint, allowing the retweet-based lawsuit to continue.
In May 2016, Mr. Lifrak retweeted an allegedly exact copy of “the WIN passage,” taken from Dr. Bell’s book, Winning Isn’t Normal, without attributing its content to Dr. Bell. The author sued, alleging that Mr. Lifrak had directly infringed his copyright and that the Cubs had committed contributory copyright infringement and were vicariously liable for Mr. Lifrak’s infringement. The defendants moved to dismiss Dr. Bell’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
On February 4, 2020, the court issued a mixed opinion. First, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim against Mr. Lifrak because it was unclear whether retweeting creates a copy of the content on the user’s computer. The court explained that defendants may be liable for direct infringement if their conduct creates a new electronic copy of copyrighted material—but are not liable if they simply link to the original copy. Based on Dr. Bell’s original complaint, which stated that a copy of the retweet existed on servers controlled by the defendant, the court could not find that the defendants had definitively not created an additional copy.
However, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the contributary copyright infringement claim. The court found that Dr. Bell did not allege any plausible facts that suggested that the Cubs had actual knowledge of the allegedly infringing activity. Rather, the retweet itself did not attribute the quote to Dr. Bell; the Cubs could thus not have known that it infringed Dr. Bell’s copyright. And Dr. Bell did not give either defendant notice of the allegedly infringing conduct prior to filing suit.
Dr. Bell was more successful in his claim for vicarious liability against the Cubs. That claim required Dr. Bell to prove two elements: first, that the Cubs had the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct; and second, that the Cubs had a direct financial interest in that conduct. The court found that the complaint, which alleged that the Cubs had the right to police Mr. Lifrak’s personal social media presence, had sufficiently pled the supervision element. The complaint further alleged that the Cubs had a direct financial interest in Mr. Lifrak’s tweets because his social media presence increased the exposure of the Cubs. The court found these allegations minimally sufficient and thus denied the motion to dismiss.
Although the court allowed most of Dr. Bell’s suit to continue, it expressed skepticism about his claims. The court warned, for example, that the complaint’s assertion that a copy of the retweet remained on servers controlled by the defendants may turn out to be factually inaccurate. The court also questioned whether the plaintiff would be able “to marshal any actual evidence” that the individual retweet resulted in direct financial gain to the Cubs. And even if that assertion is factually true and the plaintiff gathers evidence showing direct financial gain, the court noted that it may be difficult for Dr. Bell to “ever be able to establish knowledge or willfulness,” which would be required to support a claim for more than the $200 minimum statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
The decision is Bell v. Chi. Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, No. 19-cv-2386, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17527 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2020).
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.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 4, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 2024
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
March 1, 2024
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.