FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHANIE LENZ,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP.;

UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING INC.;

UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING

GROUP INC.,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 13-16106

13-16107

D.C. No.

5:07-cv-03783-

JF

ORDER AND

AMENDED

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

July 7, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed September 14, 2015

Amended March 17, 2016

Before: Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr.,

and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Order;

Opinion by Judge Tallman;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Milan D.

Smith, Jr.
2 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

SUMMARY*

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The panel filed (1) an order amending its prior opinion

and dissent and denying appellants’ petition for panel

rehearing and cross-appellant’s petitions for panel rehearing

and rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion and

dissent in an action under the Digital Millennium Copyright

Act.

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on a claim that

the defendants violated 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) bymisrepresenting

in a takedown notification that the plaintiff’s home video

constituted an infringing use of a portion of a Prince

composition. 

The panel held that the DCMA requires copyright holders

to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,

and that there was a triable issue as to whether the defendant

copyright holders formed a subjective good faith belief that

plaintiff’s use was not authorized by law. Regarding good

faith belief, the panel held that the plaintiff could proceed

under an actual knowledge theory. The panel held that the

willful blindness doctrine may be used to determine whether

a copyright holder knowingly materially misrepresented that

it held a good faith belief that the offending activity was not

a fair use. The plaintiff here, however, could not proceed to

trial under a willful blindness theory because she did not

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 3

show that the defendants subjectively believed there was a

high probability that the video constituted fair use. The panel

also held that a plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal

damages for an injury incurred as a result of a § 512(f)

misrepresentation.

Judge M. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part. 

Dissenting from Part IV.C of the majorityopinion, addressing

good faith belief, he wrote that there was not a triable issue

and that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment. He

wrote that he agreed with the majority’s conclusion that the

DCMA requires copyright holders to consider whether

potentially infringing material is a fair use before issuing a

takedown notice, but he would clarify that § 512(f)’s

requirement that a misrepresentation be knowing is satisfied

when a party knows that it is ignorant of the truth or falsity of

the misrepresentation. He also would hold that defendants’

actions were insufficient as a matter of law to form a

subjective good-faith belief that plaintiff’s video was not a

fair use.

COUNSEL

Kelly M. Klaus (argued) and Melinda LeMoine, Munger,

Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California, for

Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Corynne McSherry (argued), Cindy Cohn, Kurt Opsahl,

Daniel K. Nazer, and Julie Samuels, Electronic Frontier

Foundation, San Francisco, California; Ashok Ramani,

Michael S. Kwun, and Theresa H. Nguyen, Keker & Van

Nest LLP, San Francisco, California, for PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant.
4 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

Steven Fabrizio and Scott Wilkens, Jenner & Block LLP,

Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc.

Jennifer Pariser, Of Counsel, Recording IndustryAssociation

of America, Washington, D.C.; Cynthia Arato, Marc Isserles,

and Jeremy Licht, Shapiro, Arato & Isserles LLP, New York,

New York, for Amicus Curiae Recording Industry

Association of America.

Joseph Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, California,

for Amici Curiae Google Inc., Twitter Inc., and Tumblr, Inc.

Marvin Ammori and Lavon Ammori, Ammori Group,

Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Automatic, Inc.

Julie Ahrens and Timothy Greene, Stanford Law School

Center for Internet and Society, Stanford, California, for

Amici Curiae Organization for TransformativeWorks, Public

Knowledge, and International Documentary Association.

Catherine R. Gellis, Sausalito, California, for Amicus Curiae

Organization for Transformative Works.

ORDER

The opinion and dissent filed on September 14, 2015 and

published at 801 F.3d 1126 are hereby amended. The

amended opinion and dissent are filed concurrently with this

order.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny

Universal’s petition for panel rehearing and Lenz’s petition
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 5

for panel rehearing. Judge Tallman and Judge Murguia have

voted to deny Lenz’s petition for rehearing en banc, and

Judge M. Smith has voted to grant Lenz’s petition for

rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for

rehearing en banc. No judge has requested a vote on whether

to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).

Universal’s petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. 

Lenz’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is

DENIED. No future petitions for panel rehearing or petitions

for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

Stephanie Lenz filed suit under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)—part

of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”)—

against Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing,

Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group (collectively

“Universal”). She alleges Universal misrepresented in a

takedown notification that her 29-second home video (the

“video”) constituted an infringing use of a portion of a

composition by the Artist known as Prince, which Universal

insists was unauthorized by the law. Her claim boils down to

a question of whether copyright holders have been abusing

the extrajudicial takedown procedures provided for in the

DMCA by declining to first evaluate whether the content

qualifies as fair use. We hold that the statute requires

copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a
6 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

takedown notification, and that in this case, there is a triable

issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective

good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law. We

affirm the denial of the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment.

I

Founded in May 2005, YouTube (now owned by Google)

operates a website that hosts user-generated content. About

YouTube, YouTube.com, https://www. youtube.com/yt/about/

(last visited September 4, 2015). Users upload videos

directly to the website. Id. On February 7, 2007, Lenz

uploaded to YouTube a 29-second home video of her two

young children in the family kitchen dancing to the song Let’s

Go Crazy byPrince.1 Available at https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=N1Kf JHFWlhQ (last visited September 4, 2015). 

She titled the video “‘Let’s Go Crazy’ #1.” About four

seconds into the video, Lenz asks her thirteen month-old son

“what do you think of the music?” after which he bobs up and

down while holding a push toy.

At the time Lenz posted the video, Universal was Prince’s

publishing administrator responsible for enforcing his

copyrights. To accomplish this objective with respect to

YouTube, Robert Allen, Universal’s head of business affairs,

assigned Sean Johnson, an assistant in the legal department,

to monitor YouTube on a daily basis. Johnson searched

YouTube for Prince’s songs and reviewed the video postings

1 YouTube is a for-profit company that generates revenues by selling

advertising. If users choose to become “content partners” with YouTube,

they share in a portion of the advertising revenue generated. Lenz is not

a content partner and no advertisements appear next to the video.
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 7

returned by his online search query. When reviewing such

videos, he evaluated whether they “embodied a Prince

composition” by making “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.” According to Allen, “[t]he general guidelines are that

. . . we review the video to ensure that the composition was

the focus and if it was we then notify YouTube that the video

should be removed.”

Johnson contrasted videos that met this criteria to those

“that may have had a second or less of a Prince song, literally

a one line, half line of Prince song” or “were shot in

incredibly noisy environments, such as bars, where there

could be a Prince song playing deep in the background . . . to

the point where if there was any Prince composition

embodied . . . in those videos that it was distorted beyond

reasonable recognition.” None of the video evaluation

guidelines explicitly include consideration of the fair use

doctrine.

When Johnson reviewed Lenz’s video, he recognized

Let’s Go Crazy immediately. He noted that it played loudly

in the background throughout the entire video. Based on

these details, the video’s title, and Lenz’s query during the

video asking if her son liked the song, he concluded that

Prince’s song “was very much the focus of the video.” As a

result, Johnson decided the video should be included in a

takedown notification sent to YouTube that listed more than

200 YouTube videos Universal believed to be making
8 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

unauthorized use of Prince’s songs.2 The notice included a

“good faith belief” statement as required by 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v): “We have a good faith belief that the

above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright

owner, its agent, or the law.”

After receiving the takedown notification, YouTube

removed the video and sent Lenz an email on June 5, 2007,

notifying her of the removal. On June 7, 2007, Lenz

attempted to restore the video by sending a counternotification to YouTube pursuant to § 512(g)(3). After

YouTube provided this counter-notification to Universal per

§ 512(g)(2)(B), Universal protested the video’s reinstatement

because Lenz failed to properly acknowledge that her

statement was made under penalty of perjury, as required by

§ 512(g)(3)(C). Universal’s protest reiterated that the video

constituted infringement because there was no record that

“either she or YouTube were ever granted licenses to

reproduce, distribute, publicly perform or otherwise exploit

the Composition.” The protest made no mention of fair use. 

After obtaining pro bono counsel, Lenz sent a second

counter-notification on June 27, 2007, which resulted in

YouTube’s reinstatement of the video in mid-July.

II

Lenz filed the instant action on July 24, 2007, and her

Amended Complaint on August 15, 2007. After the district

court dismissed her tortious interference claim and request for

2

“[T]he parties do not dispute that Lenz used copyrighted material in her

video or that Universal is the true owner of Prince’s copyrighted music.” 

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1153–54 (N.D. Cal.

2008).
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 9

declaratoryrelief, Lenz filed her Second Amended Complaint

on April 18, 2008, alleging only a claim for misrepresentation

under § 512(f). The district court denied Universal’s motion

to dismiss the action.

On February 25, 2010, the district court granted Lenz’s

partial motion for summary judgment on Universal’s six

affirmative defenses, including the third affirmative defense

that Lenz suffered no damages. Both parties subsequently

moved for summary judgment on Lenz’s § 512(f)

misrepresentation claim. On January 24, 2013, the district

court denied both motions in an order that is now before us.

The district court certified its summary judgment order

for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and

stayed proceedings in district court pending resolution of the

appeal. We granted the parties permission to bring an

interlocutory appeal.

III

We review de novo the district court’s denial of summary

judgment. When doing so, we “must determine whether the

evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving

party, presents any genuine issues of material fact and

whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Warren

v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). On

cross-motions for summary judgment, we evaluate each

motion independently, “giving the nonmoving party in each

instance the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” ACLU v.

City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003).

When evaluating an interlocutory appeal, we “may

address any issue fairly included within the certified order
10 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

because it is the order that is appealable, and not the

controlling question identified by the district court.” Yamaha

Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205 (1996)

(emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). We may therefore

“address those issues material to the order from which appeal

has been taken.” In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444,

1449 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (permitting

appellate review of a ruling issued prior to the order certified

for interlocutory appeal).

IV

Effective on October 28, 1998, the DMCA added new

sections to existing copyright law by enacting five Titles,

only one of which is relevant here: Title II—Online

Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act—now

codified in 17 U.S.C. § 512. Sections 512(c), (f), and (g) are

at the heart of the parties’ dispute.

A

Section 512(c) permits service providers, e.g., YouTube

or Google, to avoid copyright infringement liability for

storing users’ content if—among other requirements—the

service provider “expeditiously” removes or disables access

to the content after receiving notification from a copyright

holder that the content is infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). 

Section 512(c)(3)(A) sets forth the elements that such a

“takedown notification” must contain. These elements

include identification of the copyrighted work, identification

of the allegedly infringing material, and, critically, a

statement that the copyright holder believes in good faith the

infringing material “is not authorized by the copyright owner,

its agent, or the law.” Id. § 512(c)(3)(A). The procedures
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 11

outlined in § 512(c) are referred to as the DMCA’s

“takedown procedures.”

To avoid liability for disabling or removing content, the

service provider must notify the user of the takedown. Id.

§ 512(g)(1)–(2). The user then has the option of restoring the

content bysending a counter-notification, which must include

a statement of “good faith belief that the material was

removed or disabled as a result of mistake or

misidentification . . . .” Id. § 512(g)(3)(C). Upon receipt of

a valid counter-notification, the service provider must inform

the copyright holder of the counter-notification and restore

the content within “not less than 10, nor more than 14,

business days,” unless the service provider receives notice

that the copyright holder has filed a lawsuit against the user

seeking to restrain the user’s infringing behavior. Id.

§ 512(g)(2)(B)–(C). The procedures outlined in § 512(g) are

referred to as the DMCA’s “put-back procedures.”

If an entity abuses the DMCA, it may be subject to

liability under § 512(f). That section provides: “Any person

who knowingly materially misrepresents under this

section—(1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that

material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or

misidentification, shall be liable for any damages . . . .” Id.

§ 512(f). Subsection (1) generally applies to copyright

holders and subsection (2) generally applies to users. Only

subsection (1) is at issue here.

B

We must first determine whether 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires copyright holders to consider

whether the potentially infringing material is a fair use of a
12 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 107 before issuing a takedown

notification. Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires a takedown

notification to include a “statement that the complaining party

has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the

manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright

owner, its agent, or the law.” The parties dispute whether fair

use is an authorization under the law as contemplated by the

statute—which is so far as we know an issue of first

impression in any circuit across the nation. “Canons of

statutory construction dictate that if the language of a statute

is clear, we look no further than that language in determining

the statute’s meaning. . . . A court looks to legislative history

only if the statute is unclear.” United States v. Lewis, 67 F.3d

225, 228–29 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). We agree

with the district court and hold that the statute unambiguously

contemplates fair use as a use authorized by the law.

Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly

authorized by the law. In 1976, Congress codified the

application of a four-step test for determining the fair use of

copyrighted works:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections

106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted

work, . . . for purposes such as criticism,

comment, news reporting, teaching (including

multiple copies for classroom use),

scholarship, or research, is not an

infringement of copyright. In determining

whether the use made of a work in any

particular case is a fair use the factors to be

considered shall include—
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 13

(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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not

itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding

is made upon consideration of all the above

factors.

17 U.S.C. § 107 (emphasis added). The statute explains that

the fair use of a copyrighted work is permissible because it is

a non-infringing use.

While Title 17 of the United States Code (“Copyrights”)

does not define the term “authorize” or “authorized,” “[w]hen

there is no indication that Congress intended a specific legal

meaning for the term, the court may look to sources such as

dictionaries for a definition.” United States v. Mohrbacher,

182 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 1999). Black’s Law Dictionary

defines “authorize” as “1. To give legal authority; to

empower” and “2. To formally approve; to sanction.” 

Authorize, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Because

17 U.S.C. § 107 both “empowers” and “formally approves”
14 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

the use of copyrighted material if the use constitutes fair use,

fair use is “authorized by the law” within the meaning of

§ 512(c). See also 17 U.S.C. § 108(f)(4) (“Nothing in this

section in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by

section 107 . . . .” (emphasis added)).

Universal’s sole textual argument is that fair use is not

“authorized by the law” because it is an affirmative defense

that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. Universal’s

interpretation is incorrect as it conflates two different

concepts: an affirmative defense that is labeled as such due to

the procedural posture of the case, and an affirmative defense

that excuses impermissible conduct. Supreme Court

precedent squarely supports the conclusion that fair use does

not fall into the latter camp: “[A]nyone who . . . makes a fair

use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with

respect to such use.” Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City

Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433 (1984).

Given that 17 U.S.C. § 107 expressly authorizes fair use,

labeling it as an affirmative defense that excuses conduct is

a misnomer:

Although the traditional approach is to view

“fair use” as an affirmative defense, this

writer, speaking only for himself, is of the

opinion that it is better viewed as a right

granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. 

Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any

statutory basis, fair use was an infringement

that was excused—this is presumably why it

was treated as a defense. As a statutory

doctrine, however, fair use is not an

infringement. Thus, since the passage of the
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 15

1976 Act, fair use should no longer be

considered an infringement to be excused;

instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. 

Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is

clear that the burden of proving fair use is

always on the putative infringer.

Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532, 1542 n.22 (11th

Cir. 1996) (Birch, J.). We agree. Cf. Lydia Pallas Loren,

Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense?, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 685,

688 (2015) (“Congress did not intend fair use to be an

affirmative defense—a defense, yes, but not an affirmative

defense.”). Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative

defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no

liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright,

Practice Management Information Corp. v. American

Medical Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516, 520 (9th Cir. 1997), and laches,

Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 950–51 (9th Cir.

2001).

Universal concedes it must give due consideration to

other uses authorized by law such as compulsory licenses. 

The introductory language in 17 U.S.C. § 112 for compulsory

licenses closely mirrors that in the fair use statute. Compare

17 U.S.C. § 112(a)(1) (“Notwithstanding the provisions of

section 106, . . . it is not an infringement of copyright for a

transmitting organization entitled to transmit to the public a

performance or display of a work . . . to make no more than

one copy or phonorecord of a particular transmission program

embodying the performance or display . . . .”), with id. § 107

(“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,

the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement

of copyright.”). That fair use may be labeled as an affirmative

defense due to the procedural posture of the case is no
16 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

different than labeling a license an affirmative defense for the

same reason. Compare Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,

510 U.S. 569, 573 & n.3, 590 (1994) (stating that “fair use is

an affirmative defense” where the district court converted a

motion to dismiss based on fair use into a motion for

summary judgment), with A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster,

Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Napster

contends that . . . the district court improperly rejected valid

affirmative defenses of . . . implied license . . . .”). Thus,

Universal’s argument that it need not consider fair use in

addition to compulsory licenses rings hollow.

Even if, as Universal urges, fair use is classified as an

“affirmative defense,” we hold—for the purposes of the

DMCA—fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as

to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. 

We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of

non-infringing use, fair use is “authorized by the law” and a

copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use

before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c).

C

We must next determine if a genuine issue of material

fact exists as to whether Universal knowinglymisrepresented

that it had formed a good faith belief the video did not

constitute fair use. This inquiry lies not in whether a court

would adjudge the video as a fair use, but whether Universal

formed a good faith belief that it was not. Contrary to the

district court’s holding, Lenz may proceed under an actual

knowledge theory, but not under a willful blindness theory.
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 17

1

Though Lenz argues Universal should have known the

video qualifies for fair use as a matter of law, we have

already decided a copyright holder need only form a

subjective good faith belief that a use is not authorized. Rossi

v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am. Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir.

2004). In Rossi, we explicitly held that “the ‘good faith

belief’ requirement in § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) encompasses a

subjective, rather than objective standard,” and we observed

that “Congress understands this distinction.” Id. at 1004. We

further held:

When enacting the DMCA, Congress could

have easilyincorporated an objective standard

of reasonableness. The fact that it did not do

so indicates an intent to adhere to the

subjective standard traditionally associated

with a good faith requirement. . . .

In § 512(f), Congress included an expressly

limited cause of action for improper

infringement notifications, imposing liability

only if the copyright owner’s notification is a

knowing misrepresentation. A copyright

owner cannot be liable simply because an

unknowing mistake is made, even if the

copyright owner acted unreasonably in

making the mistake. Rather, there must be a

demonstration of some actual knowledge of

misrepresentation on the part of the copyright

owner.
18 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

Id. at 1004–05 (citations omitted). Neither of these holdings

are dictum. See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914

(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[W]here a panel confronts an

issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and

resolves it after reasoned consideration in a published

opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, regardless

of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical

sense.”). We therefore judge Universal’s actions by the

subjective beliefs it formed about the video.

2

Universal faces liability if it knowinglymisrepresented in

the takedown notification that it had formed a good faith

belief the video was not authorized by the law, i.e., did not

constitute fair use. Here, Lenz presented evidence that

Universal did not form any subjective belief about the video’s

fair use—one way or another— because it failed to consider

fair use at all, and knew that it failed to do so. Universal

nevertheless contends that its procedures, while not formally

labeled consideration of fair use, were tantamount to such

consideration. Because the DMCA requires consideration of

fair use prior to sending a takedown notification, a jury must

determine whether Universal’s actions were sufficient to form

a subjective good faith belief about the video’s fair use or

lack thereof.3

3 Although the panel agrees on the legal principles we discuss herein, we

part companywith our dissenting colleague over the propriety ofresolving

on summary judgment Universal’s claim to subjective belief that the

copyright was infringed. The dissent would find that no triable issue of

fact exists because Universal did not specifically and expressly consider

the fair-use elements of 17 U.S.C. § 107. But the question is whether the

analysis Universal did conduct of the video was sufficient, not to

conclusively establish as a matter of law that the video’s use of Let’s Go
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 19

To be clear, if a copyright holder ignores or neglects our

unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before

sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages

under § 512(f). If, however, a copyright holder forms a

subjective good faith belief the allegedly infringing material

does not constitute fair use, we are in no position to dispute

the copyright holder’s belief even if we would have reached

the opposite conclusion. A copyright holder who pays lip

service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed

a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is

still subject to § 512(f) liability. Cf. Disney Enters., Inc. v.

Hotfile Corp., No. 11-cv-20427, 2013 WL 6336286, at *48

(S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2013) (denying summary judgment of

§ 512(f) counterclaim due to “sufficient evidence in the

record to suggest that [Plaintiff] Warner intentionallytargeted

files it knew it had no right to remove”); Rosen v. Hosting

Servs., Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1223 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

(denying summary judgment of § 512(f) counterclaim where

the takedown notification listed four URL links that did not

contain content matching the description of the purportedly

infringed material); Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc.,

337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1204–05 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“[T]here is

no genuine issue of fact that Diebold knew—and indeed that

it specifically intended—that its letters to OPG and

Swarthmore would result in prevention of publication of that

content. . . . The fact that Diebold never actually brought suit

against any alleged infringer suggests strongly that Diebold

sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which

were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a

Crazy was fair, but to form a subjective good faith belief that the video

was infringing on Prince’s copyright. And under the circumstances of this

case, that question is for the jury, not this court, to decide.
20 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather

than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.”).

3

We hold the willful blindness doctrine may be used to

determine whether a copyright holder “knowingly materially

misrepresent[ed]” that it held a “good faith belief” the

offending activity was not a fair use. See 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v), (f). “[T]he willful blindness doctrine may

be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate

knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement

under the DMCA.” Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,

676 F.3d 19, 35 (2d Cir. 2012) (interpreting how a party can

establish the “actual knowledge”—a subjective belief—

required by § 512(c)(1)(A)(I)); see also UMG Recordings,

Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1023

(9th Cir. 2013) (“Of course, a service provider cannot

willfully bury its head in the sand to avoid obtaining such

specific knowledge.” (citing Viacom, 676 F.3d at 31)). But,

based on the specific facts presented during summary

judgment, we reject the district court’s conclusion that Lenz

may proceed to trial under a willful blindness theory.

To demonstrate willful blindness a plaintiff must establish

two factors: “(1) the defendant must subjectively believe that

there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the

defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of

that fact.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S.

Ct. 2060, 2070 (2011). “Under this formulation, a willfully

blind defendant is one who takes deliberate actions to avoid

confirming a high probability of wrongdoing and who can

almost be said to have actually known the critical facts.” Id.

at 2070–71. To meet the Global-Tech test, Lenz must
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 21

demonstrate a genuine issue as to whether—before sending

the takedown notification—Universal (1) subjectively

believed there was a high probability that the video

constituted fair use, and (2) took deliberate actions to avoid

learning of this fair use.

On summary judgment Lenz failed to meet a threshold

showing of the first factor. To make such a showing, Lenz

must provide evidence from which a juror could infer that

Universal was aware of a high probability the video

constituted fair use. See United States v. Yi, 704 F.3d 800,

805 (9th Cir. 2013). But she failed to provide any such

evidence. The district court therefore correctly found that

“Lenz does not present evidence suggesting Universal

subjectively believed either that there was a high probability

any given video might make fair use of a Prince composition

or her video in particular made fair use of Prince’s song

‘Let’s Go Crazy.’” Yet the district court improperly denied

Universal’s motion for summary judgment on the willful

blindness theory because Universal “has not shown that it

lacked a subjective belief.” By finding blame with

Universal’s inability to show that it “lacked a subjective

belief,” the district court improperly required Universal to

meet its burden of persuasion, even though Lenz had failed to

counter the initial burden of production that Universal

successfully carried. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322 (1986); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos.,

Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). Lenz may not

therefore proceed to trial on a willful blindness theory.

V

Section 512(f) provides for the recoveryof “any damages,

including costs and attorneys[’] fees, incurred by the alleged
22 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

infringer . . . who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the

result of the service provider relying upon such

misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the

material or activity claimed to be infringing . . . .” 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(f). We hold a plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal

damages for an injury incurred as a result of a § 512(f)

misrepresentation.

Universal incorrectly asserts that Lenz must demonstrate

she incurred “actual monetary loss.” Section 512(k) provides

a definition for “monetary relief” as “damages, costs,

attorneys[’] fees, and any other form of monetary payment.” 

The term “monetary relief” appears in § 512(a), (b)(1), (c)(1),

and (d), but is notably absent from § 512(f). As a result, the

damages an alleged infringer may recover under § 512(f)

from “any person” are broader than monetary relief.4 Cf.

United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 605 (1986) (“Congress’

choice of the language ‘any damage’ . . . undercuts a narrow

construction.”), abrogated on other grounds by Cent. Green

Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425 (2001). Because Congress

specified the recovery of “any damages,” we reject

Universal’s contention that Congress did not indicate its

intent to depart from the common law presumption that a

misrepresentation plaintiff must have suffered a monetary

loss. See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208

(1993) (“Where Congress includes particular language in one

section of a statute but omits it in another, it is generally

presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in

the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (quotation omitted)).

4 Title I of the DMCA specifies recovery for “actual damages.”

17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(1)(A). If Congress intended to similarly limit the

recovery of § 512(f) damages to pecuniary losses, it could have chosen to

do so.
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 23

Lenz may seek recovery of nominal damages due to an

unquantifiable harm suffered as a result of Universal’s

actions.5 The DMCA is akin to a statutorily created

intentional tort whereby an individual may recover nominal

damages for a “knowinglymaterial misrepresent[ation] under

this section [512].” 17 U.S.C. § 512(f); cf. Memphis Cmty.

Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305 (1986) (“We have

repeatedly noted that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a species of

tort liability in favor of persons who are deprived of rights,

privileges, or immunities secured to them by the Constitution. 

Accordingly, when § 1983 plaintiffs seek damages for

violations of constitutional rights, the level of damages is

ordinarily determined according to principles derived from

the common law of torts.” (quotation and citations omitted)).

“In a number of common law actions associated with

intentional torts, the violation of the plaintiff’s right has

generally been regarded as a kind of legal damage in itself. 

The plaintiff who proves an intentional physical tort to the

person or to property can always recover nominal damages.” 

3 Dan B. Dobbs et al., The Law of Torts § 480 (2d ed. 2011). 

The tort need not be physical in order to recover nominal

damages. Defamation, for example, permits the recovery of

nominal damages:

A nominal damage award can be justified in a

tort action only if there is some reason for

awarding a judgment in favor of a claimant

who has not proved or does not claim a

5 Lenz may not recover nominal damages for “impairment of free speech

rights.” No authority supports the recovery of nominal damages caused

by a private actor’s chilling of free speech rights. All of the cases Lenz

cites address challenges to governmental action.
24 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

compensable loss with sufficient certainty to

justify a recovery of compensatory or actual

damages. There may be such a reason in an

action for defamation, since a nominal

damage award serves the purpose of

vindicating the plaintiff’s character by a

verdict of the jury that establishes the falsity

of the defamatory matter.

W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 116A,

at 845 (5th ed. 1984). Also, individuals may recover nominal

damages for trespass to land, even though the trespasser’s

“presence on the land causes no harm to the land [or] its

possessor . . . .” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 &

cmts. d, e (1965).

The district court therefore properly concluded in its 2010

order:

The use of “any damages” suggests strongly

Congressional intent that recovery be

available for damages even if they do not

amount to . . . substantial economic damages

. . . . Requiring a plaintiff who can [show

that the copyright holder knowingly

misrepresented its subjective good faith] to

demonstrate in addition not only that she

suffered damages but also that those damages

were economic and substantial would vitiate

the deterrent effect of the statute.

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. C 07-3783 JF, 2010 WL

702466, at *10 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2010). Relying on this

opinion, the Southern District of Florida held the same. 
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 25

Hotfile, 2013 WL 6336286, at *48 (“[T]he Court observes

that the quantity of economic damages to Hotfile’s system is

necessarily difficult to measure with precision and has led to

much disagreement between the parties and their experts. 

Notwithstanding this difficulty, the fact of injury has been

shown, and Hotfile’s expert can provide the jury with a

non-speculative basis to assess damages.”).

We agree that Lenz may vindicate her statutorily created

rights by seeking nominal damages. Because a jury has not

yet determined whether Lenz will prevail at trial, we need not

decide the scope of recoverable damages, i.e., whether she

may recover expenses following the initiation of her § 512(f)

suit or pro bono costs and attorneys’ fees, both of which arose

as a result of the injury incurred.

VI

Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in

good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—

whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use, a

use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as authorized by

the law. That this step imposes responsibility on copyright

holders is not a reason for us to reject it. Cf. Consumer Prod.

Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 123–24

(1980) (“[A]ny increased burdens imposed on the

Commission as a result of its compliance with [the Consumer

Product Safety Act] were intended by Congress in striking an

appropriate balance between the interests of consumers and

the need for fairness and accuracywith respect to information

disclosed by the Commission. Thus, petitioners’ claim that

the Commission’s compliance with the requirements of [the

Act] will impose undue burdens on the Commission is

properly addressed to Congress, not to this Court.”). We
26 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

affirm the district court’s order denying the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. Each party shall bear its own costs.

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting

in part:

I concur in all but Part IV.C of the majority opinion.

However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that

“whether Universal’s actions were sufficient to form a

subjective good faith belief about the video’s fair use or lack

thereof” presents a triable issue of fact. Universal admittedly

did not consider fair use before notifying YouTube to take

down Lenz’s video. It therefore could not have formed a good

faith belief that Lenz’s video was infringing, and its

notification to the contrary was a knowing material

misrepresentation. Accordingly, I would hold that Lenz is

entitled to summary judgment.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires copyright holders to consider

whether potentially infringing material is a fair use before

issuing a takedown notice. As the majority explains, a

takedown notice must contain “[a] statement that the

complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the

material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the

copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v). Because fair use of copyrighted material

is not an infringement of copyright, such use is “authorized

by . . . the law.” See id. § 107. Therefore, in order to form “a

good faith belief that use of the material in the manner
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 27

complained of is not authorized by . . . the law,”

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v), a party must consider the doctrine of fair

use. I also agree with the majority that § 512(f) provides a

party injured by a violation of § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) with a right

of action for damages, including nominal damages.

However, I part ways with the majority on two issues.

First, I would clarify that § 512(f)’s requirement that a

misrepresentation be “knowing[]” is satisfied when the party

knows that it is ignorant of the truth or falsity of its

representation. Second, I would hold that Universal’s actions

were insufficient as a matter of law to form a subjective

good-faith belief that Lenz’s video was not a fair use.

I

Section 512(f) requires that a misrepresentation be

“knowing[]” to incur liability. In my view, when the

misrepresentation concerns § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the knowledge

requirement is satisfied when the party knows that it has not

considered fair use. That is, Universal need not have known

that the video was a fair use, or that its actions were

insufficient to form a good-faith belief about fair use. It need

only have known that it had not considered fair use as such.1

As the majority explains, we have previously held in

Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am. Inc. that “the ‘good faith

belief’ requirement in § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) encompasses a

1

I do not believe that, in this regard, my construction conflicts with that

of the majority. Although the majority does not squarely address

§ 512(f)’s scienter requirement, it leaves for the jury only the question

“whether Universal’s actions were sufficient to form a subjective good

faith belief about the video’s fair use or lack thereof.”
28 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

subjective, rather than objective, standard.” 391 F.3d 1000,

1004 (9th Cir. 2004). Rossi reasoned that a subjective

standard comported with § 512(f)’s requirement that

actionable misrepresentations be “knowing[]”, and ultimately

held that liability under § 512(f) requires “a demonstration of

some actual knowledge of misrepresentation on the part of

the copyright owner.” 391 F.3d at 1005.

Universal urges us to construe Rossi to mean that liability

attaches under § 512(f) only if a party subjectively believes

that its assertion is false. But under long-settled principles of

deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation, a party need only

know that it is ignorant of the truth or falsity of its

representation for its misrepresentation to be knowing. For

example, in Cooper v. Schlesinger, 111 U.S. 148, 155 (1884),

the Supreme Court explained that “a statement recklessly

made, without knowledge of its truth, [is] a false statement

knowingly made, within the settled rule.”2 Similarly, under

the common law, “[a] misrepresentation is fraudulent if the

maker . . . knows or believes that the matter is not as he

represents it to be, . . . [or] knows that he does not have the

basis for his representation that he states or implies.”

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 526 (emphasis added).3

2

See also Sovereign Pocahontas Co. v. Bond, 120 F.2d 39, 39–40 (D.C.

Cir. 1941); Knickerbocker Merch. Co. v. United States, 13 F.2d 544, 546

(2d Cir. 1926); L J Mueller Furnace Co. v. Cascade Foundry Co., 145 F.

596, 600 (3d Cir. 1906); Hindman v. First Nat’l Bank, 112 F. 931, 944

(6th Cir. 1902).

3 The Second Restatement refers to “fraudulent misrepresentation,”

rather than “knowing” misrepresentation. See Restatement (Second) of

Torts § 526. However, as the Restatement clarifies, the requirement that

a misrepresentation be “fraudulent” refers “solely” to the party’s

knowledge of misrepresentation. See id. cmt. a. The Restatement’s
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 29

One who asserts a belief that a work is infringing without

considering fair use lacks a basis for that belief. It follows

that one who knows that he has not considered fair use knows

that he lacks a basis for that belief. That is sufficient “actual

knowledge of misrepresentation” to meet the scienter

requirement of § 512(f). See Rossi, 391 F.3d at 1005. Thus,

to be held liable under § 512(f), Universal need only have

failed to consider fair use, and known that it had failed to

consider fair use.

II

It is undisputed that Universal’s policy was to issue a

takedown notice where a copyrighted work was used as “the

focus of the video” or “prominently featured in the video.”

By Universal’s own admission, its agents were not instructed

to consider whether the use was fair. Instead, Universal

directed its agents to spare videos that had “a second or less

of a Prince song” or where the song was “distorted beyond

reasonable recognition.” And yet, from this, the majority

concludes that “whether Universal’s actions were sufficient

to form a subjective good faith belief about the video’s fair

use or lack thereof” presents a triable issue of fact.

I respectfully disagree. The Copyright Act explicitly

enumerates the factors to be considered in assessing whether

use of copyrighted material is fair. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Universal’s policy was expressly to determine whether a

video made “significant use”—not fair use—of the work.

Nothing in Universal’s methodology considered the purpose

and character of the use, the commercial or noncommercial

definition of “fraudulent” is therefore persuasive authority for construing

the meaning of “knowingly.”
30 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

nature of the use, or whether the use would have a significant

impact on the market for the copyrighted work.4See § 107.

There is therefore no disputed issue of fact: Universal did not

consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice.

Moreover, Universal knew it had not considered fair use,

because § 107 explicitly supplies the factors that “shall” be

considered in determining whether a use is fair. Id. I see no

reason in law or logic to excuse copyright holders from the

general principle that knowledge of the law is presumed. See

United States v. Int’l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558,

562–63 (1971) (holding that the use of the word “knowingly”

did not evince a legislative intent to “carv[e] out an exception

to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse”).

As explained above, that is sufficient in my view to conclude

that Universal’s takedown notice was a knowing

misrepresentation.

Based on Rossi’s holding that a subjective good-faith

belief in infringement is sufficient to satisfy

§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v), 391 F.3d at 1005, the majority disagrees.

But the majority’s reading of Rossi would insulate from

 

4

 Had Universal properly considered the statutory elements of fair use,

there is no doubt that it would have concluded that Lenz’s use of Let’s Go

Crazy was fair. See, e.g., TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 2015 WL

9255341 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2015) (finding on a motion to dismiss that

the use in a Broadway show of one minute and seven seconds of the

Abbott and Costello routine Who’s On First? was fair because the use was

“highly transformative” and unlikely to usurp the market for the original);

SOFA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2013)

(affirming summary judgment that use of a seven-second clip of The Ed

Sullivan Show was fair for similar reasons). Universal’s “significant use”

analysis, by contrast, is more like determining whether a use is de minimis,

a much more stringent test than fair use. See Sandoval v. New Line

Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215, 217 (2d Cir. 1998).
LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC 31

liability any subjective belief in infringement, no matter how

poorly formed. Rossi did not abrogate the statutory

requirement that the belief be held in good faith. I would

therefore hold that a belief in infringement formed

consciously without considering fair use is no good-faith

belief at all. See Cooper, 111 U.S. at 155 (holding that such

a belief is a knowing misrepresentation). And to assert in

good faith that a use is not fair, a party must consider the

statutory elements of fair use set forth in § 107. Merely

evaluating whether a use is “significant” is not enough.

The majority’s unfortunate interpretation of § 512(f)

would permit a party to avoid liability with only the most

perfunctory attention to fair use. Such a construction

eviscerates § 512(f) and leaves it toothless against frivolous

takedown notices. And, in an era when a significant

proportion of media distribution and consumption takes place

on third-party safe harbors such as YouTube,5if a creative

work can be taken down without meaningfully considering

fair use, then the viability of the concept of fair use itself is in

jeopardy. Such a construction of § 512(f) cannot comport

with the intention of Congress.

* * *

In sum: Universal represented that it had formed a goodfaith belief that Lenz’s video was an infringement of

copyright—that is, that the video was not fair use. Because

5

See Statistics, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/

statistics.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2016) (reporting that “every day people

watch hundreds of millions of hours on YouTube” and that YouTube

“reaches more 18–34 and 18–49 year-olds than any cable network in the

U.S.”).
32 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC

Universal did not actually consider the factors constituting

fair use, its representation was false—a misrepresentation.

Because those factors are set forth in § 107 (and § 107

expressly states that a fair use “is not an infringement of

copyright”), Universal’s misrepresentationwas knowing. And

because there is no further disputed issue of fact concerning

liability, I respectfully dissent.