Google & YouTube Not Liable Copyright Infringement

24 June 2010 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Author(s): Peter Vogel

Viacom lost its $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for alleged copyright infringement when a judge granted summary judgment. YouTube’s defense was that it used the “safe harbor” protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) where YouTube would remove allegedly infringing videos after being notified, and after three offenses a poster would be banned from YouTube. On June 23, 2010 US District Judge Louis Stanton granted YouTube and Google’s motions in defense of claims brought by Via and other plaintiffs. In the 30 page Opinion Judge Stanton pointed out that “over 24 hours of new video-viewing time is uploaded to the YouTube website every minute.”  I know that YouTube is responsive to the DCMA takedown requests because YouTube has removed videos which have infringed copyrights of my clients.  The DCMA takedown procedures rules are part of YouTube’s Terms of Service.

Viacom to Appeal

Viacom plans an appeal, but at this moment this appears to be a monumental ruling for Google and YouTube which helps define Copyright law on the Internet. As a trial lawyer my experience is that Judges rarely grant summary judgment (there are no facts in dispute, and the moving party wins on the law without a trial).  It is more likely than not that Google and YouTube will prevail on the appeal since the trial Judge granted summary judgment.  This case is important given size of YouTube and its role in changing Social Media.

YouTube Turns 5

When YouTube celebrated its fifth birthday in May, 2010 it announced that it passed “two billion video views a day.” YouTube has perennially lost money so there were many analysts who criticized Google’s $1.65 billion purchase of YouTube in 2006, which was made worse when Viacom brought its Copyright infringement lawsuit in 2007. YouTube has been developing partnerships with music labels to compete with ", the joint venture of Fox, NBC and ABC." So Judge Stanton’s Order should help clear Google and YouTube’s path for success and bring clarify about the DMCA.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services