16‐2825‐cv(L) BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc. 1 2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ________ 6 7 AUGUST TERM, 2017 8 9 ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 10 DECIDED: APRIL 17, 2019 11 12 Nos. 16‐2825‐cv, 16‐2992‐cv 13 14 BWP MEDIA USA INC., DBA PACIFIC COAST NEWS, PACIFIC COAST NEWS, 15 NATIONAL PHOTO GROUP, LLC, 16 Plaintiffs‐Appellants‐Cross‐Appellees, 17 18 v. 19 20 POLYVORE, INC., 21 Defendant‐Appellee‐Cross‐Appellant. 22 ________ 23 24 Appeal from the United States District Court 25 for the Southern District of New York. 26 No. 13 Civ. 7867 – Ronnie Abrams, Judge. 27 ________ 28 29 Before: NEWMAN, WALKER, and POOLER, Circuit Judges. 30 ________ 31 2 No. 16‐2825‐cv(L) 1 BWP Media USA Inc., Pacific Coast News, and National Photo Group, LLC 2 (collectively “BWP”), appeal from a memorandum and order of the United States 3 District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ronnie Abrams, J.) that 4 granted summary judgment to Polyvore, Inc. (“Polyvore”) on BWP’s copyright 5 claims for direct and secondary infringement and denied BWP’s cross‐motion for 6 summary judgment on direct infringement. The district court also denied 7 Polyvore’s motion for sanctions under 17 U.S.C. § 505. 8 We conclude that the district court’s grant of summary judgment to 9 Polyvore on the direct infringement claim was error because there is a dispute of 10 material fact regarding whether Polyvore created multiple copies of BWP’s photos 11 that were not requested by Polyvore users. We further conclude that questions of 12 material fact preclude us from holding at this stage that Polyvore satisfied the 13 requirements for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) § 512(c) safe 14 harbor, even though BWP has not shown that Polyvore’s stripping of metadata 15 disqualifies it from safe harbor protection. We agree with the district court, 16 however, that Polyvore is entitled to summary judgment on BWP’s secondary 17 infringement claims of contributory, vicarious, and inducement of infringement 18 because the district court found that BWP abandoned those claims. And we find 3 No. 16‐2825‐cv(L) 1 no error in the district court’s decision not to sanction BWP. We therefore AFFIRM 2 the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing BWP’s secondary 3 infringement claims, AFFIRM the denial of attorney’s fees, VACATE the judgment 4 as to direct infringement, and REMAND for further proceedings pursuant to the 5 principles and procedures set out United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994). 6 Judges Walker, Newman and Pooler concur in separate opinions. 7 ________ 8 CRAIG B. SANDERS, Sanders Law, PLLC, Garden City, NY, for 9 Plaintiffs‐Appellants‐Cross‐Appellees. 10 ORIN SNYDER (Ester Murdukhayeva, on the brief), Gibson, Dunn 11 & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant‐Appellee‐Cross‐ 12 Appellant. 13 Robert Reeves Anderson, Arnold & Porter LLP, Denver, CO, 14 John C. Ulin, Kathryn W. Hutchinson, Stephanie S. Roberts, 15 Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae, 16 Copyright Alliance, in support of Plaintiffs‐Appellants‐Cross‐ 17 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals