222:. The judge found that when the defendant originally sent the takedown notices for violation of copyright, the defendant made an "unquestionably false assertion". The fact that the defendant promptly, after-the-fact, acknowledged that takedown notice was for trademark, not copyright, did not matter. The defendant also argued that most websites only provided one form for copyright takedown and none for trademark, so it had to use the copyright form. The judge found this defense an improper consideration and thus ruled in the plaintiff's favor for defendant's wrongful assertion of copyright violation.
146:". This was due to the song's cover art which stated that the song was "inspired by the twilight saga," even though Smith copyrighted the song in 2002, and used a similar typeface as in "twilight" mark. Summit notified Smith that he was free to "redeposit" his song on YouTube, provided he would remove references to the defendant's trademark. Later Smith changed the cover art to display "A Vampire Love Story" instead of "Inspired by the Twilight Saga".
244:
that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and can be considered completely intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the defendant's actions proximately caused psychological injury to the plaintiff; and (4) the plaintiff suffered serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure.
282:
For the plaintiff to win the defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that a false statement was made about the plaintiff and published without privilege to a third party with fault or at least negligence on the part of the defendant. He must also prove that the statement was either defamatory per
247:
The plaintiff, however, did not allege that the defendant intended to cause, knew, or should have known its false assertion of a copyright infringement would cause serious emotional distress. The plaintiff also did not allege that he suffered "severe psychological injury". Even if the plaintiff had
230:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's statements to the websites were fraudulent. To demonstrate actionable fraud, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant knowingly made false statements, upon which it expected the plaintiff to rely, (2) the false statements must have been relied
141:
In
November and December 2010, Smith uploaded his copyrighted song "Eternal Knight" to various Internet websites (YouTube, iTunes, CD Baby and Amazon). Summit Entertainment contacted YouTube to take down Smith's song, alleging that the song violated both trademark and copyright belonging to Summit.
243:
To prove the defendant caused infliction of emotional distress intentionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant intended to cause, or knew or should have known that his actions would result in serious emotional distress; (2) the defendant's conduct was so extreme and outrageous
264:
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant intentionally interfered in the business relationships between the plaintiff and the websites. To prove such claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate elements similar to those of contractual relationships stated aforementioned. The judge thus reached the
234:
There were two possible candidates subject to injury here: the plaintiff and the websites. The plaintiff knew that he, and he alone, had a valid copyright in his song and could not plausibly rely on the false statements made by the defendant. This left only the websites as victims of fraud. The
260:
The judge found that the defendant adequately knew of the contractual relationship with the websites. Since the defendant sent a takedown notice, the whole purpose of which is to cause removal of the song from the websites, the defendant knew by sending such notices would lead to removal of the
256:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant intentionally interfered in the contractual relationships between the plaintiff and the websites. To prove this claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) he had a contractual relationship with the websites; (2) the defendant's knowledge of such a
468:
261:
plaintiff's song from the websites. It was also easy to see the damages caused by this removal given the importance of unimpeded display of the song on the websites to the plaintiff. The judge thus ruled in the plaintiff's favor.
286:
Given the defendant made a false statement that the plaintiff's song violated the defendant's copyright when it had no such privilege, and the plaintiff suffered damages, the judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor.
273:
The plaintiff alleged that "Defendant has breached the copyright." Nowhere in the complaint, however, contained any factual basis for making such assertion and the count was thus dismissed by the judge.
114:
38:
235:
plaintiff, however, did not claim the websites suffered injury from relying on the false statements. Thus, the judge dismissed Count 2, plaintiff's assertion of fraud/misrepresentation.
142:
The song was then removed from the website. Smith later found out from Summit that the issue was one of trademark, not copyright, i.e. the song's CD cover violated Summit's trademarked "
122:
248:
made such allegations in the complaint, there was no factual basis for such contentions. The judge therefore dismissed Count 3 of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
133:§ 512 claims are hard to win, and the plaintiff's success was due to the combination of his persuasive story and convincing additional claims which complemented § 512.
206:
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 6, and ruled in the plaintiff's favor by denying the motion to dismiss for Counts 1, 4, 5, and 7.
176:
463:
257:
relationship; (3) the defendant's intentional interference caused a breach or termination of the relationship; and (4) damages from the interference.
458:
346:
28:
143:
297:
129:, among which three were dismissed and four were ruled in Smith's favor. The case is noteworthy given that copyright
67:
194:
363:"17 USC 512(f) Claim Against "Twilight" Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss-Smith v. Summit Entertainment"
188:
182:
118:
439:
403:
329:
81:
421:
362:
473:
252:
Count 4 & 5: Intentional interference in contractual relationships and business relationships
121:. Smith asserted seven causes of action for Summit Entertainment's wrongful use of copyright
219:
218:§ 512, the plaintiff can seek damage only if the defendant knowingly misrepresented the
163:
Wrongful assertion that plaintiff's song infringed Summit's copyright in violation of
452:
96:
350:
231:
upon, and (3) injury to the relying party must have resulted from the reliance.
265:
same conclusion for the same reasons with regard to both Count 4 and Count 5.
200:
110:
215:
173:
via Summit's assertion that it had a copyright interest in plaintiff's song;
164:
130:
27:
417:
Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton
Heidelberg Distrib. Co., Inc.
117:, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued
126:
78:
469:
United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio cases
170:
115:
United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
39:
United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
377:
239:
Count 3: Intentional infliction of emotional distress
109:, No. 3:11-cv-00348 (N.D. Ohio June 6, 2011), was a
226:
Count 2: Fraudulent
Assertion of Copyright Interest
159:Smith's complaint asserted seven causes of action:
92:
87:
73:
63:
55:
45:
34:
20:
210:Count 1: Wrongful Assertion of Copyright Violation
301:, another case of YouTube takedown notice misuse.
399:Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A.
8:
283:se or caused special harm to the plaintiff.
177:Intentional infliction of emotional distress
342:
340:
338:
50:Matthew Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC
17:
319:
317:
315:
311:
7:
435:McPeek v. Leetonia Italian-Am. Club
332: (N.D. Ohio. June 6, 2011).
14:
325:Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC
106:Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC
21:Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC
464:United States copyright case law
26:
269:Count 6: Copyright infringement
459:2011 in United States case law
1:
298:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
185:in contractual relationships;
155:Causes of Action and Decision
440:174 Ohio App. 3d 380
422:148 Ohio App. 3d 596
214:According to Copyright Act,
191:with business relationships;
490:
404:183 Ohio App.3d 40
330: No. 3:11-cv-00348
25:
189:Intentional interference
183:Intentional interference
195:Copyright infringement
125:notice on the website
150:Opinion of the Court
119:Summit Entertainment
278:Count 7: Defamation
41:, Western Division
442:, 384 (2007).
424:, 605 (2002).
102:
101:
481:
443:
437:
431:
425:
419:
413:
407:
406:, 61 (2009).
401:
395:
389:
388:
386:
384:
376:Smith, Matthew.
373:
367:
366:
365:. June 13, 2011.
359:
353:
344:
333:
327:
321:
88:Court membership
30:
18:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
478:
449:
448:
447:
446:
433:
432:
428:
415:
414:
410:
397:
396:
392:
382:
380:
378:"MattHeart.com"
375:
374:
370:
361:
360:
356:
345:
336:
323:
322:
313:
308:
293:
280:
271:
254:
241:
228:
220:takedown notice
212:
157:
152:
139:
12:
11:
5:
487:
485:
477:
476:
471:
466:
461:
451:
450:
445:
444:
426:
408:
390:
368:
354:
347:17 U.S.C.
334:
310:
309:
307:
304:
303:
302:
292:
289:
279:
276:
270:
267:
253:
250:
240:
237:
227:
224:
211:
208:
204:
203:
198:
192:
186:
180:
174:
168:
156:
153:
151:
148:
138:
135:
100:
99:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
75:
71:
70:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
486:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
456:
454:
441:
436:
430:
427:
423:
418:
412:
409:
405:
400:
394:
391:
379:
372:
369:
364:
358:
355:
352:
348:
343:
341:
339:
335:
331:
326:
320:
318:
316:
312:
305:
300:
299:
295:
294:
290:
288:
284:
277:
275:
268:
266:
262:
258:
251:
249:
245:
238:
236:
232:
225:
223:
221:
217:
209:
207:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
162:
161:
160:
154:
149:
147:
145:
144:Twilight Saga
136:
134:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:heard by the
112:
108:
107:
98:
97:James G. Carr
95:
93:Judge sitting
91:
86:
83:
80:
76:
72:
69:
68:3:11-cv-00348
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
434:
429:
416:
411:
398:
393:
381:. Retrieved
371:
357:
324:
296:
285:
281:
272:
263:
259:
255:
246:
242:
233:
229:
213:
205:
158:
140:
105:
104:
103:
59:June 6, 2011
49:
15:
383:November 8,
64:Docket nos.
453:Categories
351:§ 512
306:References
201:Defamation
474:Lionsgate
216:17 U.S.C.
165:17 U.S.C.
131:17 U.S.C.
291:See also
123:takedown
74:Citation
127:YouTube
82:2200599
56:Decided
438:,
420:,
402:,
349:
328:,
167:§ 512;
171:Fraud
137:Facts
77:2011
35:Court
385:2011
111:case
455::
337:^
314:^
79:WL
387:.
197:;
179:;
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
