Source: http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/Kelly.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:43:01+00:00

Document:
KELLY v. ARRIBA SOFT CORP.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff and defendant cross-moved for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's claims that retrieval and use of plaintiff's photographs, without copyright management information, by defendant's visual search engine on the Internet constituted copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
OVERVIEW: Defendant operated a visual search engine on the Internet which retrieved plaintiff's photographs and made them available to users of defendant's search engine. Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing the copyright management information associated with plaintiff's images. The court held that the creative nature of plaintiff's images and the substantiality of copying weighed against finding that defendant's use of the images constituted a fair use of the images under 17 U.S.C.S. § 107. However, the character of defendant's use and lack of market harm established such fair use in view of the established importance of search engines and the transformative nature of using reduced versions of the images. Since defendant did not remove copyright management information from plaintiff's works, had no reasonable grounds to suspect infringement by its users, and provided a link to such information, there was no DMCA violation.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment for defendant was granted, and denied to plaintiff, because defendant's use of plaintiff's photographs by its Internet visual search engine, in a transformative reduced version, constituted fair use of the images; plaintiff's copyright management information was not removed by the defendant and remained available by link.
For PLAINTIFF: Steven L. Krongold, Krongold Law Firm, Costa Mesa, California.
For DEFENDANT: Judith Bond Jennison, Perkins Coie LLP, Menlo Park, California.
GARY L. TAYLOR, United States District Judge.
On apparent first impression, the Court holds the use by an Internet "visual search engine" of others' copyrighted images is a prima facia copyright violation, but it may be justified under the "fair use" doctrine. The Court finds that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the "fair use" [*1117] doctrine applies, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is not violated.
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First and Second Claims for Relief is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Defendant Ditto (formerly known as Arriba) operates a "visual search engine" on the Internet. Like other Internet search engines, it allows a user to obtain a list of related Web [**2] content in response to a search query entered by the user. Unlike other Internet search engines, Defendant's retrieves images instead of descriptive text. It produces a list of reduced, "thumbnail" pictures related to the user's query.
n1 This full-size image was not technically located on Defendant's Web site. It was displayed by opening a link to its originating Web page. But only the image itself, and not any other part of the originating Web page, was displayed on the image attributes page. From the user's perspective, the source of the image matters less than the context in which it is displayed.
n2 Defendant's current search engine, ditto.com, operates in a slightly different manner. When a ditto.com user clicks on a thumbnail, two windows open simultaneously. One window contains the full-size image; the other contains the originating Web page in full.
Ditto's search engine (in both of its versions) works by maintaining an indexed database of approximately two million thumbnail images. These thumbnails are obtained through the operation of Ditto's "crawler," a computer program that travels the Web in search of images to be converted into thumbnails and added to the index. n3 Ditto's employees conduct a final screening to rank the most relevant thumbnails and eliminate inappropriate images.
n3 Images are briefly stored in full on Defendant's server until the thumbnail is made; they are then deleted. Joint Stip. P 32. There is no claim that Defendant provides any access to the full-sized images during this period.
Plaintiff Kelly is a photographer specializing in photographs of California gold rush country and related to the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder. He does not sell the photographs independently, but his photographs have appeared in several books. Plaintiff also maintains two Web sites, one of which (www.goldrush1849.com) provides a "virtual tour" of California's [**4] gold rush country and promotes Plaintiff's book on the subject, and the other (www.showmethegold.com) markets corporate retreats in California's gold rush country.
In January 1999, around thirty five of Plaintiff's images were indexed by the Ditto crawler and put in Defendant's image database. As a result, these images were made available in thumbnail form to users of Defendant's visual search engine.
n4 Defendant's request for judicial notice of a Nature article, and Plaintiff's objection to the request, are both inappropriate. The parties have already included this article as Exhibit 5 to their Joint Stipulation of Facts.
These cross motions for summary adjudication present two questions of first impression. The first is whether the display of copyrighted images by a "visual search engine" on the Internet constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act. The second is whether the display of such images without their copyright management information is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c). If no material historical facts are disputed, the ultimate conclusion to be drawn on the issue of "fair use" is for the Court and not a jury. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588, 105 S. Ct. 2218 (1985); Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 436 (9th Cir. 1986).
In order to show copyright infringement, Plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and invasion of one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders. 17 U.S.C. § 106. Defendant does not dispute the validity of Plaintiff's copyrights or his ownership of them. Defendant also does not [**6] dispute it reproduced and displayed Plaintiff's images in thumbnail form without authorization. Plaintiff thus has shown a prima facie case of copyright infringement unless the fair use doctrine applies.
Fair use is an affirmative defense, and defendants carry the burden of proof on the issue. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 918 (2d Cir. 1995); Columbia Pictures Ind. v. Miramax Films Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1187 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("because fair use is an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of proof on all of its factors"). Based on an analysis of the factors, the Court finds there is fair use here.
The first factor considers the nature of the use, including whether the use is commercial or educational. This, however, does not end the inquiry. "Purpose and character" also involve an assessment of whether "the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or [**8] message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is transformative." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 579, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500, 114 S. Ct. 1164 (1994) (citation omitted). "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other [*1119] factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Id. at 579.
n6 The parties argue at length about the possibility of blocking the Ditto crawler from a Web site by use of a "robots.txt" file or other methods. Defendant posted instructions on its Web site for blocking the Ditto crawler in March, after Plaintiff's images had already been indexed. Plaintiff's Web sites have never used any of these blocking methods. Joint Stip. P 34.
The Ditto crawler has, in the past, apparently visited sites that were supposed to be blocked. Plaintiff argues this is evidence of bad faith by Defendant and suggests the fair use defense should as a result be precluded. The record shows Defendant made efforts to correct problems of this sort when it became aware of them, and did not act in bad faith.
n7 Defendant also sought to promote a now-discontinued software product called Arriba Express. Arriba Express allowed users to "vacuum" an entire originating Web site and store it on their computers simply by pointing at a thumbnail. Joint Stip. P 45-50, Exh. 18. The images would be stored along with all content from the originating Web site. Arriba Express served a function related to that of the search engine, and Defendant's promotion of it represents a related type of "commercial use."
The most significant factor favoring Defendant is the transformative nature of its use of Plaintiff's images. Defendant's use is very different from the use for which the images were originally created. Plaintiff's photographs are artistic works used for illustrative purposes. Defendant's visual search engine is designed to catalog and improve access to images on the Internet. Joint Stip. PP 27-29, 32. The character of the thumbnail index is not esthetic, but functional; its purpose is not to be artistic, but to be comprehensive.
To a lesser extent, the Arriba Vista image attributes page also served this purpose by allowing users to obtain more details about an image. The image attributes page, however, raises other concerns. It allowed users to view (and potentially download) full-size images without necessarily viewing the rest of the originating Web page. At the same time, it was less clearly connected to the search engine's purpose of finding and organizing Internet content for users. The presence of the image attributes page in the old version of the search engine somewhat detracts from the transformative effect of the search engine. But, when considering purpose and character [**11] of use in a new enterprise of this sort, it is more appropriate to consider the transformative purpose rather than the early imperfect means of achieving that purpose. The Court finds the purpose and character of Defendant's use was on the whole significantly transformative.
The Court finds the first factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor in § 107 is an acknowledgment "that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others, with the consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when [*1120] the former works are copied." Campbell, supra 510 U.S. at 586. Artistic works like Plaintiff's photographs are part of that core. The Court finds the second factor weighs against fair use.
The third fair use factor assesses whether the amount copied was "reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying." Id. The analysis focuses on "the persuasiveness of a [copier's] justification for the particular copying done, and the enquiry will harken back to the first of the statutory factors, for . . . the extent of permissible copying [**12] varies with the purpose and character of the use." Id. at 586-87.
In the thumbnail index, Defendant used Plaintiff's images in their entirety, but reduced them in size. Defendant argues it is necessary for a visual search engine to copy images in their entirety so users can be sure of recognizing them, and the reduction in size and resolution mitigates damage that might otherwise result from copying. As Defendant has illustrated in its brief, thumbnails cannot be enlarged into useful images. Defendant's Memo of P & A, at 3. Use of partial images or images further reduced in size would make images difficult for users to identify, and would eliminate the usefulness of Defendant's search engine as a means of categorizing and improving access to Internet resources.
n8 The newer search engine, ditto.com, appears to lessen this problem by eliminating the image attributes page and simultaneously opening the originating Web page along with a full-size image.
If only the thumbnail index were at issue, Defendant's copying would likely be reasonable in light of its purposes. The image attributes page, however, was more remotely related to the purposes of the search engine. The Court finds the third factor weighs slightly against fair use.
The fourth factor inquiry examines the direct impact of the defendant's use and also considers "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original." Campbell, supra, 510 U.S. at 590 (citation omitted).
The relevant market is Plaintiff's Web sites as a whole. The photographs are used to promote the products sold by Plaintiff's [**14] Web sites (including Plaintiff's books and corporate tour packages) and draw users to view the additional advertisements posted on those Web sites. The fourth factor addresses not just the potential market for a particular photo, but also its "value." The value of Plaintiff's photographs to Plaintiff could potentially be adversely affected if their promotional purposes are undermined.
Defendant argues there is no likely negative impact because its search engine does not compete with Plaintiff's Web sites and actually increases the number of users finding their way to those sites.
Plaintiff argues the market for his various products has been harmed. Defendant's conduct created a possibility that some users might improperly copy and use Plaintiff's images from Defendant's site. Defendant's search engine also enabled users to "deep link" directly to the pages containing retrieved images, and thereby bypass the "front page" of the originating Web site. As a result, these users would be [*1121] less likely to view all of the advertisements on the Web sites or view the Web site's entire promotional message. However, Plaintiff has shown no evidence of any harm or adverse impact.
In the absence [**15] of any evidence about traffic to Plaintiff's Web sites or effects on Plaintiff's businesses, the Court cannot find any market harm to Plaintiff. The Defendant has met its burden of proof by offering evidence tending to show a lack of market harm, and Plaintiff has not refuted that evidence. The Court finds the fourth factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The Court finds two of the four factors weigh in favor of fair use, and two weigh against it. The first and fourth factors (character of use and lack of market harm) weigh in favor of a fair use finding because of the established importance of search engines and the "transformative" nature of using reduced versions of images to organize and provide access to them. The second and third factors (creative nature of the work and amount or substantiality of copying) weigh against fair use.
The first factor of the fair use test is the most important in this case. Defendant never held Plaintiff's work out as its own, or even engaged in conduct specifically directed at Plaintiff's work. Plaintiff's images were swept up along with two million others available on the Internet, as part of Defendant's efforts to provide [**16] its users with a better way to find images on the Internet. Defendant's purposes were and are inherently transformative, even if its realization of those purposes was at times imperfect. Where, as here, a new use and new technology are evolving, the broad transformative purpose of the use weighs more heavily than the inevitable flaws in its early stages of development.
The Court has weighed all of the § 107 factors together. The Court finds Defendant's conduct constituted fair use of Plaintiff's images. There is no triable issue of material fact remaining to be resolved on the question of fair use, and summary adjudication is appropriate. Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to the copyright infringement claims.
Enacted on October 28, 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) implements two earlier World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. Section 1202 of the DMCA governs "integrity of copyright management information." n9 Section 1202(a) prohibits falsification of copyright management information with the intent to aid copyright infringement. Section 1202(b) prohibits, unless authorized, [**17] several forms of knowing removal or alteration of copyright management information. n10 Section 1203 creates a federal civil action for violations of these provisions.
(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright.
(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.
(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright.
17 U.S.C. § 1202 (c).
(3) distribute . . . copies of works . . . knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under [federal copyright law].
Plaintiff argues Defendant violated § 1202(b) by displaying thumbnails of [*1122] Plaintiff's images without displaying the corresponding copyright management information consisting of standard copyright notices in the surrounding text. Joint Stip. of Facts, PP 64-69. Because these notices do not appear in the images themselves, the Ditto crawler did not include them when it indexed the images. n11 Id. P 70. As a result, the images appeared in Defendant's index without the copyright management information, and any users retrieving Plaintiff's images while using Defendant's Web site would not see the copyright management information.
n11 There was one exception--a version of the "Shasta Rainbow" image obtained by the Ditto crawler from a third-party Web site. The copyright notice for that image was incorporated into the image itself (fine print along the edge of the picture). See Joint Stip., PP 72-73. Plaintiff's allegations of DMCA violations are inapplicable to this image.
Section 1202(b)(1) does not apply to [**19] this case. Based on the language and structure of the statute, the Court holds this provision applies only to the removal of copyright management information on a plaintiff's product or original work. Moreover, even if § 1202(b)(1) applied, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence showing Defendant's actions were intentional, rather than merely an unintended side effect of the Ditto crawler's operation.
Here, where the issue is the absence of copyright management information from copies of Plaintiff's works, the applicable provision is § 1202(b)(3). To show a violation of that section, Plaintiff must show Defendant makes available to its users the thumbnails and full-size images, which were copies of Plaintiff's work separated from their copyright management information, even though it knows or should know this will lead to infringement of Plaintiff's copyrights. There is no dispute the Ditto crawler removed Plaintiff's images from the context of Plaintiff's Web sites where their copyright management information was located, and converted them to thumbnails in Defendant's index. There is also no dispute the Arriba Vista search engine allowed full-size images to be viewed without [**20] their copyright management information.
n12 Through Defendant's current search engine, ditto.com, the user can no longer open a full-sized image without also opening the site where its copyright management information is located.
n13 Plaintiff argues Defendant's warnings are insufficient because they do not appear with the thumbnail images on the search result pages produced by the search engine. The Arriba Vista Web site only offered a warning if users clicked on a link to its "Copyright" page. This warning may arguably have been placed in the wrong place to deter some potential copyright infringers. But this does not necessarily mean Defendant "knew" or "should have known" for the purposes of a DMCA violation, especially since Plaintiff offers no evidence of any actual copyright infringement about which Defendant "should have known."
Based on all of this, the Court finds Defendant did not have "reasonable grounds to know" it would cause its users to infringe Plaintiff's copyrights. Defendant warns its users about the possibility of use restrictions on the images in its index, and instructs them to check with the originating Web sites before copying and using those images, even in reduced thumbnail form.
Plaintiff's images are vulnerable to copyright infringement because they are displayed on Web sites. Plaintiff has not shown users of Defendant's site were any more likely to infringe his copyrights, any of these users did infringe, or Defendant should reasonably have expected infringement.
[*1123] There is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial on Plaintiff's DMCA claims, and summary adjudication is appropriate. The Court finds there was no violation of DMCA § 1202. Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED on the DMCA claim.

References: v. 
 § 107
 v. 
 v. 
 § 106
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 107
 § 107
 § 1202
 § 1202
 § 1202
 § 1202
 § 1202