On August 16, 2023, a federal high court in Texas ruled on a copyright matter including an accurate video that went viral on social networks. At the movement to dismiss phase, the problem the court dealt with was whether the affirmative defense of reasonable usage applied to an accused who utilized the video to promote his company. The court ruled that reasonable usage did not use, and rejected the movement. Viral DRM, LLC v. Frank Kent Nation, LLC, Civ. No. 3:23- CV-0250-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2023) (2023 WL 5284844).
Background
This matter started when the complainant, a business in business of licensing videos, was designated the rights to a video portraying a pickup driving through a high-intensity twister. The video was incredibly popular on social networks. The accused, an auto dealership, was among lots of who shared the video on social networks. Unlike lots of other posts, nevertheless, the accused superimposed music from the truck’s maker and included its marketing motto. The accused offered this brand name of automobile.
The judgment
The complainant declared that the accused infringed its signed up copyright in the video. The accused argued the affirmative defense of reasonable usage: that its usage of the accurate video was “reasonable usage” under the copyright law.
The copyright law lists 4 elements for courts to think about when identifying whether reasonable usage prevents a copyright violation claim:
(1) the function and character of the usage, consisting of whether such usage is of an industrial nature or is for not-for-profit instructional functions;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the quantity and substantiality of the part utilized in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the impact of the usage upon the possible market for or worth of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. § 107.
Although these 4 elements are not special, courts often stress the very first and 4th elements. The court examined all 4 elements.
With regard to the very first aspect, the court discovered that the accused’s usage was industrial (not individual or instructional), which the accused stood to make money from usage of the video without paying the popular cost. This crucial very first aspect preferred the complainant, and weighed versus reasonable usage.
The 2nd aspect, the nature of the work, concentrated on the accurate nature of the video, instead of an imaginary work. This 2nd aspect preferred the accused, and weighed in favor of reasonable usage.
The 3rd aspect, quantity and substantiality of the work utilized by the accused, was 100%, so that aspect preferred the complainant and weighed versus reasonable usage.
With regard to the crucial 4th aspect, impact on the possible market, the court discovered that prevalent usage of the video might damage the complainant’s licensing design. “Additionally, the simple truth that the Video has actually been distributed extensively on social networks does not weaken this conclusion: lots of wrongs– that is, lots of infringing usages of the Video– do not make Frank Kent’s supposedly infringing usage acceptable.”
For That Reason, due to the fact that just one of the 4 elements preferred the accused, the court ruled in favor of the complainant and discovered that reasonable usage did not use.
Takeaway
Utilizing somebody else’s video without consent welcomes problem. And it is no defense that lots of others are making copies too. Remember that statutory damages are readily available in copyright cases and can reach $150,000 per infringed work if the violation is “willful.” 17 U.S.C. § 504.