303:: an order restraining the provider from providing access to the infringing material or activity, an order restraining access to an account engaging in infringing activity, or other relief that the court deems necessary to prevent specific instances of infringement. The court held that this section provided no relief to Wolk because Photobucket had already complied with all of her takedown notices.
28:
292:
argued that her notices to
Photobucket identifying specific instances of infringement also served as notices of present and future infringement, effectively requiring Photobucket to police its site for user activity that infringes Wolk's copyrights. The court held that the DMCA imposes no such obligation on service providers.
378:: Wolk argued that her takedown notices imposed a duty on Photobucket to remove all present and future instances of infringement of the works she listed. The court disagreed, holding that Photobucket was only required to remove the instances of infringing material that Wolk specifically identified in DMCA-compliant notices.
384:: Photobucket did not have the "right and ability to control" user-generated content because it did not prescreen user submissions before publishing them. In addition, Photobucket did not receive a financial benefit specifically from the infringing activity; rather, it profited by providing its services in general.
679: (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against the Kodak Defendants, motion for summary judgment against Photobucket, motion to amend, motion to admit expert testimony and motion to investigate are denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted.").
354:
First, the court held that
Photobucket was entitled to safe-harbor protections under the DMCA. It found that Photobucket satisfied the three threshold requirements for safe-harbor protections: (1) it was a "service provider" within the statutory definition, (2) it adopted and reasonably implemented a
264:
Photobucket's agreement with Kodak relied on an automated system which transferred images from the
Photobucket website to the Kodak Gallery, where "prints and other items incorporating the photographs" would be available for purchase from Kodak. Wolk described ten incidents in which Kodak "allegedly
321:
Courts will grant summary judgment if the evidence shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Courts ask "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
216:
The court held that Kodak was not liable for direct copyright infringement because its photofinishing system relied on an automated process, and liability requires volitional conduct beyond "mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies." The court also held that
Photobucket was
260:
Photobucket promptly removed the infringing content in response to all of Wolk's DMCA-compliant notices and some of her non-compliant notices. However, Wolk also wanted
Photobucket to proactively remove future posts containing the material she identified without the need for her to send additional
338:
To prevail on a claim of direct infringement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in "volitional conduct" that caused the infringement. Here, the court held that "there is no evidence of volitional conduct, thereby preventing Wolk from establishing direct liability." Kodak fulfilled
473:
Photofinishing is the business or process of printing photographs from film negatives or digital images. This case, which released Kodak from liability associated with photofinishing, marks a possible departure from earlier cases holding photofinishers liable for creating unauthorized prints of
291:
because (1) Photobucket fell within the statutory definition of "service provider," (2) it implemented a policy to deal with repeat infringers, (3) it did not interfere with "standard technical measures," and (4) under the circumstances of this case, it met the requirements for protection. Wolk
278:
Wolk moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent
Photobucket from infringing her copyrights. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must prove either "a likelihood of success on the merits" or "irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships falls in her favor, or that public policy
452:
wrote that this case is "a reminder that the responsibility of finding infringing works is up to the copyright holder, not the website. A website that complies with the DMCA safe harbors is responsible for removing UGC (user-generated content) only if the copyright holder notifies them of the
436:
wrote that "this is the most detailed judicial discussion of 512(j) to date", offering a substantial interpretation of the DMCA's injunctive provisions. He also wrote that this case establishes "useful boundary-setting for service providers" in future scenarios when those providers might find
489:
did "not constitute a volitional act" because it was the result of an automated process. Eric
Goldman commented that "Kodak's system was completely automated only because Kodak's engineers designed it that way,", and that "a richer theoretical grounding for the volitional doctrine and how it
482:, seeking $ 600,000 in damages and an injunction to prevent Kmart from violating copyright law by printing copyright protected images for their customers. Retailers have sought to avoid liability by refusing to print high-quality images without written releases from photographers.
342:
Since Kodak could not be held liable for direct infringement, the court did not reach the questions of whether Kodak qualified for DMCA safe harbors, whether its infringement was "willful", or whether Wolk was entitled to statutory damages for each work of art infringed.
460:
wrote that "the fact that
Photobucket was found to easily fit into the 'safe harbor' provided by the DMCA suggests that the path for internet companies to stay safe from copyright allegations is getting clearer in the wake of recent major decisions, such as the
317:
On May 2, 2011, Wolk moved for summary judgment against
Photobucket and Kodak. In response, both Photobucket and Kodak filed cross-motions for summary judgment against Wolk. The court denied Wolk's motions and granted the motions of Photobucket and Kodak.
1130:
282:
The court held that Wolk's claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits because
Photobucket qualified for safe-harbor protections under the DMCA. Specifically, Photobucket qualified for the safe-harbor protections of
363:, which creates a safe harbor for service providers that host "nformation residing on systems or networks at direction of users." The court addressed five points in its analysis of Photobucket's safe harbor under
339:
orders from Photobucket through an automatic computer system without any human intervention. Since the process was entirely automated, Kodak lacked the volition necessary to hold it liable for direct infringement.
330:
In her motion for summary judgment against Kodak, Wolk argued that Kodak directly infringed her copyrights by copying her images and printing them on products for its customers. She argued that she was entitled to
444:
do have this technology. He also commented that "it will continue to be cheaper and more effective to place intermediaries on actual notice than to bring 'constructive' notice/they shoulda known' litigations."
490:
interplays with strict liability" could add clarity to this result. Goldman added that "this ruling has to be encouraging for other automated photofinishers (whether they print photos or other items), such as
38:
355:
policy to block repeat infringers, and (3) it accommodated and did not interfere with "standard technical measures." The court also found that Photobucket met the requirements for protection under
306:
The court also found that Wolk failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships weighed in her favor, or that the injunction would serve the public interest.
522:
1135:
440:
Martin Schwimmer of "The Trademark Blog" pointed out that Photobucket may not have pre-screening methods in place to police infringement, but larger companies like
425:
protected Photobucket from these claims. Even without the safe harbor protections, however, the court noted that Wolk's claims for secondary liability would fail.
351:
In her motion for summary judgment against Photobucket, Wolk argued that Photobucket was liable for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement.
245:
to Photobucket relating to nine of Wolk's works which Photobucket users had uploaded. Eleven of these notices did not comply with § 512(c)(3) of the DMCA (
417:
Wolk also argued that Photobucket was secondarily liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The court held that the safe harbor under
515:
462:
799:
772:
734:
295:
Because Photobucket qualified for DMCA safe-harbor protections, the injunctive relief available to Wolk was limited to the three types enumerated in
193:
case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for
1140:
508:
475:
973:
1019:
755:
688:
418:
407:
364:
356:
296:
284:
246:
168:
160:
120:
1087:
449:
222:
1070:
589:
529:
536:
265:
made, sold and shipped products using Wolk's copyrighted images without obtaining Wolk's permission or a valid license."
190:
309:
Because she failed to prove the elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction, the court denied Wolk's motion.
592:, 2011 WL 940056 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2011) ("Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.").
453:
specific illegal content at that moment (a 512(c)(3) takedown notice). It's not responsible for future occurrences."
66:
676:
254:
230:
210:
875:
202:
194:
479:
335:
of up to $ 150,000 for each instance of infringement because Kodak "wilfully infringed" her copyrights.
901:
406:
The court concluded that "Photobucket is able to take advantage of the 'safe harbor' provision under
242:
924:
950:
708:
437:
themselves faced with "copyright owners who want turnkey never-infringe-my-stuff-again services."
852:
1105:"SDNY Grants Summary Judgement Motions of Photobucket.com and Kodak Defendants in DMCA Dispute"
1042:
996:
332:
218:
402:: Photobucket did not have a duty to monitor its service for evidence of infringing activity.
485:
In this case, the court established that the transmission of images from Photobucket to the
396:: Photobucket properly designated an agent to receive takedown notices as the DMCA requires.
152:
225:(DMCA). This case is one of the few to analyze the forms of injunctive relief available to
997:"Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims"
156:
140:
1145:
759:
250:
205:
provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use
176:
172:
1124:
486:
390:: Photobucket promptly removed infringing material when it received takedown notices.
206:
692:
422:
411:
368:
360:
300:
288:
164:
124:
433:
822:
213:) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.
127:
and Kodak is not directly liable for the printing of images from Photobucket site
198:
85:
735:"Wolk v Photobucket: "Shoulda Known" Argument Fails To Remove DMCA Protection"
226:
800:"Photobucket Easily Rebuffs A Copyright Lawsuit—A Pattern Likely To Continue"
76:
Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc.
974:"Walmart Requires a Written Release for Photos that Look "Too Professional""
491:
1131:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York cases
853:"Photobucket Qualifies for the 512(c) Safe Harbor (Again)–Wolk v. Kodak"
414:." Thus Photobucket was not liable for direct copyright infringement.
495:
457:
1071:"Image Hosting Service Wins Summary Judgment in SDNY Copyright Suit"
1020:"Walmart Won't Let Family Print Photos Of Dead Relative For Funeral"
27:
233:
protected from copyright liability by DMCA safe-harbor provisions.
1104:
709:"Photo Hosting Site Gets DMCA 512 Safe Harbor–Wolk v. Photobucket"
39:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
441:
1043:"Don't Blame One Wal-Mart Employee For Dumb Copyright Comments"
322:
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law."
109:
Appeal filed Second Circuit US Court of Appeals 2012-01-30
119:
Photobucket qualifies for safe-harbor protections under
876:"Photographers' Group Sues Kmart Over Illegal Reprints"
382:"Right and ability to control" and "financial benefit"
823:"Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary"
189:, 840 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2012), was a
523:
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC
146:
136:
131:
113:
105:
97:
92:
80:
72:
62:
54:
44:
34:
20:
951:"Wal-Mart Won't Print Photos If They Are Too Good"
474:copyrighted works. For instance, In 1999, the
902:"Wal-Mart Clerks Become Copyright Vigilantes"
8:
773:"Wolk v. Kodak reinforces DMCA safe harbors"
376:Actual knowledge of the infringing activity
728:
726:
666:
664:
662:
660:
658:
656:
654:
652:
650:
648:
646:
644:
642:
640:
638:
636:
634:
632:
630:
628:
626:
624:
622:
620:
618:
579:
577:
575:
573:
516:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
17:
1136:Digital Millennium Copyright Act case law
616:
614:
612:
610:
608:
606:
604:
602:
600:
598:
571:
569:
567:
565:
563:
561:
559:
557:
555:
553:
253:) because they neglected to include the
241:Prior to filing suit, Wolk sent fifteen
101:Preliminary injunction denied 2011-03-17
549:
846:
844:
842:
840:
1018:Northrup, Laura (November 19, 2009).
953:. Technology & Marketing Law Blog
874:Karnowski, Steve (December 5, 1999).
711:. Technology & Marketing Law Blog
702:
700:
509:IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.
476:Professional Photographers of America
7:
733:Schwimmer, Martin (March 27, 2011).
49:Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
995:Maznick, Mick (November 19, 2009).
972:Zhang, Michael (November 8, 2011).
855:. Technology and Marketing Law Blog
771:Yohannan, Thomas (March 27, 2011).
672:Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
585:Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
279:supports her sought-after relief."
186:Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
21:Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
851:Goldman, Eric (January 22, 2012).
14:
1041:Masnick, Mike (August 14, 2008).
707:Goldman, Eric (March 24, 2011).
450:California Western School of Law
223:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
197:. Users uploaded Wolk's work to
26:
1088:"Recent Developments in IP Law"
825:. The Free Dictionary by Farlex
530:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc.
1141:2012 in United States case law
949:Goldman, Eric (June 9, 2005).
798:Mullin, Joe (March 27, 2011).
537:Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC
388:Removal of infringing material
1:
191:United States district court
677:840 F. Supp. 2d 724
1162:
257:for the infringing posts.
590:10 Civ. 4135(RWS)
151:
118:
25:
469:Photofinishing liability
231:online service providers
929:San Diego Union Tribune
448:Thomas Yohannan of the
209:to commercially print (
274:Preliminary injunction
203:user-generated content
195:copyright infringement
737:. The Trademark Blog
217:protected under the
1103:Mckinney, Jessica.
923:Ballint, Kathryn.
779:. New Media Rights
777:The Trademark Blog
221:provisions of the
1090:. Landslide (ABA)
880:Los Angeles Times
333:statutory damages
182:
181:
106:Subsequent action
1153:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1099:
1097:
1095:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1073:. martindale.com
1055:
1054:
1052:
1050:
1038:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1015:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1004:
992:
986:
985:
983:
981:
969:
963:
962:
960:
958:
946:
940:
939:
937:
935:
925:"Snap judgments"
920:
914:
913:
911:
909:
904:. On The Commons
900:Bollier, David.
897:
891:
890:
888:
886:
871:
865:
864:
862:
860:
848:
835:
834:
832:
830:
818:
812:
811:
809:
807:
795:
789:
788:
786:
784:
768:
762:
760:§ 512(c)(3)
753:
747:
746:
744:
742:
730:
721:
720:
718:
716:
704:
695:
686:
680:
674:
668:
593:
587:
581:
394:Designated agent
313:Summary judgment
251:§ 512(c)(3)
243:takedown notices
173:§ 512(c)(3)
153:DMCA safe harbor
132:Court membership
30:
18:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1110:
1108:
1107:. Bloomberg Law
1102:
1093:
1091:
1085:
1076:
1074:
1069:Friel, Alan L.
1068:
1064:
1062:Further reading
1059:
1058:
1048:
1046:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1025:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1002:
1000:
994:
993:
989:
979:
977:
971:
970:
966:
956:
954:
948:
947:
943:
933:
931:
922:
921:
917:
907:
905:
899:
898:
894:
884:
882:
873:
872:
868:
858:
856:
850:
849:
838:
828:
826:
821:Random, House.
820:
819:
815:
805:
803:
797:
796:
792:
782:
780:
770:
769:
765:
754:
750:
740:
738:
732:
731:
724:
714:
712:
706:
705:
698:
687:
683:
670:
669:
596:
583:
582:
551:
546:
504:
471:
431:
349:
328:
315:
276:
271:
239:
157:takedown notice
141:Robert W. Sweet
12:
11:
5:
1159:
1157:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1100:
1086:Gatz, John C.
1083:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1033:
1010:
987:
964:
941:
915:
892:
866:
836:
813:
790:
763:
756:17 U.S.C.
748:
722:
696:
689:17 U.S.C.
681:
594:
548:
547:
545:
542:
541:
540:
533:
526:
519:
512:
503:
500:
470:
467:
456:Joe Mullin of
430:
427:
419:17 U.S.C.
408:17 U.S.C.
404:
403:
400:Duty to police
397:
391:
385:
379:
365:17 U.S.C.
357:17 U.S.C.
348:
345:
327:
324:
314:
311:
297:17 U.S.C.
285:17 U.S.C.
275:
272:
270:
267:
247:17 U.S.C.
238:
235:
180:
179:
177:photofinishing
169:17 U.S.C.
161:17 U.S.C.
149:
148:
144:
143:
138:
134:
133:
129:
128:
121:17 U.S.C.
116:
115:
111:
110:
107:
103:
102:
99:
95:
94:
90:
89:
82:
78:
77:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1158:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1106:
1101:
1089:
1084:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1044:
1037:
1034:
1022:. Consumerist
1021:
1014:
1011:
998:
991:
988:
975:
968:
965:
952:
945:
942:
930:
926:
919:
916:
903:
896:
893:
881:
877:
870:
867:
854:
847:
845:
843:
841:
837:
824:
817:
814:
801:
794:
791:
778:
774:
767:
764:
761:
757:
752:
749:
736:
729:
727:
723:
710:
703:
701:
697:
694:
693:§ 512(j)
690:
685:
682:
678:
673:
667:
665:
663:
661:
659:
657:
655:
653:
651:
649:
647:
645:
643:
641:
639:
637:
635:
633:
631:
629:
627:
625:
623:
621:
619:
617:
615:
613:
611:
609:
607:
605:
603:
601:
599:
595:
591:
586:
580:
578:
576:
574:
572:
570:
568:
566:
564:
562:
560:
558:
556:
554:
550:
543:
539:
538:
534:
532:
531:
527:
525:
524:
520:
518:
517:
513:
511:
510:
506:
505:
501:
499:
497:
493:
488:
487:Kodak Gallery
483:
481:
477:
468:
466:
464:
459:
454:
451:
446:
443:
438:
435:
428:
426:
424:
423:§ 512(c)
420:
415:
413:
412:§ 512(c)
409:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
373:
372:
370:
369:§ 512(c)
366:
362:
361:§ 512(c)
358:
352:
346:
344:
340:
336:
334:
325:
323:
319:
312:
310:
307:
304:
302:
301:§ 512(j)
298:
293:
290:
289:§ 512(c)
286:
280:
273:
269:Court opinion
268:
266:
262:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
214:
212:
208:
207:Kodak Gallery
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
178:
174:
170:
166:
165:§ 512(c)
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
142:
139:
137:Judge sitting
135:
130:
126:
125:§ 512(c)
122:
117:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
68:
67:1:10-cv-04135
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1109:. Retrieved
1092:. Retrieved
1077:February 11,
1075:. Retrieved
1049:February 20,
1047:. Retrieved
1036:
1026:February 20,
1024:. Retrieved
1013:
1003:February 20,
1001:. Retrieved
990:
980:February 20,
978:. Retrieved
967:
957:February 20,
955:. Retrieved
944:
934:February 20,
932:. Retrieved
928:
918:
908:February 20,
906:. Retrieved
895:
885:February 20,
883:. Retrieved
879:
869:
857:. Retrieved
829:February 20,
827:. Retrieved
816:
804:. Retrieved
793:
781:. Retrieved
776:
766:
751:
739:. Retrieved
713:. Retrieved
684:
671:
584:
535:
528:
521:
514:
507:
484:
472:
463:YouTube case
455:
447:
439:
434:Eric Goldman
432:
416:
405:
399:
393:
387:
381:
375:
353:
350:
341:
337:
329:
320:
316:
308:
305:
294:
281:
277:
263:
259:
240:
215:
185:
184:
183:
98:Prior action
93:Case history
48:
15:
1111:February 4,
1094:February 4,
976:. PetaPixel
859:February 4,
741:February 4,
715:February 4,
347:Photobucket
219:safe-harbor
211:photofinish
199:Photobucket
86:F. Supp. 2d
63:Docket nos.
1125:Categories
1045:. TechDirt
999:. TechDirt
544:References
429:Commentary
227:plaintiffs
73:Defendants
58:2012-01-03
806:March 19,
783:March 19,
492:CafePress
261:notices.
175:notices,
802:. GigaOm
502:See also
147:Keywords
81:Citation
114:Holding
55:Decided
758:
691:
675:,
588:,
496:Zazzle
458:GigaOm
421:
410:
367:
359:
299:
287:
249:
229:suing
171:
163:
123:
1146:Kodak
480:Kmart
478:sued
326:Kodak
237:Facts
35:Court
1113:2014
1096:2014
1079:2014
1051:2014
1028:2014
1005:2014
982:2014
959:2014
936:2014
910:2014
887:2014
861:2014
831:2014
808:2014
785:2014
743:2014
717:2014
442:eBay
255:URLs
201:, a
84:840
498:."
494:or
465:."
88:724
1127::
927:.
878:.
839:^
775:.
725:^
699:^
597:^
552:^
371::
167:,
159:,
155:,
1115:.
1098:.
1081:.
1053:.
1030:.
1007:.
984:.
961:.
938:.
912:.
889:.
863:.
833:.
810:.
787:.
745:.
719:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
