United States: Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A.: How Far Is Too Far When It Comes To The Extraterritorial Reach Of US Copyright Law?

Last Updated: October 27 2017
Article by Robert C. Welsh

As a general matter, acts of copyright infringement that occur outside the jurisdiction of the United States are not actionable under U.S. copyright law. "The Copyright Act, it has been observed time and again, does not apply extraterritorially." Kirstaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351, 1376 (2013) (Ginsburg, J. dissenting). The general prohibition against the extraterritorial application of U.S. copyright law has been interpreted to mean that (1) purely extraterritorial conduct is not actionable in U.S. courts, but (2) extraterritorial conduct that crosses international borders and results in infringing conduct within the United States remains actionable under U.S. copyright laws. M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 17.02 p. 17-28 (2015).

In Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A., (Case No. 17-7051), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will have to determine whether U.S. copyright law extends to situations in which the entirety of the defendant's conduct occurred outside the territorial limits of the U.S., and the only allegedly infringing conduct occurring in the U.S. resulted from activities undertaken by plaintiff's own lawyers.

The Spanski Enterprises case grows out of a dispute between the creator of Polish language television programming and its exclusive U.S. licensee. The defendant is Poland's government-owned national television network that produces and is the copyright owner of much of the programming televised over its network in Poland. The plaintiff is the exclusive U.S. distributor for various television programs produced by the defendant. In addition to televising these programs in Poland, the defendant operates a video-on-demand (VOD) website in Poland that allows viewers to stream the defendant's programs to their computers. The parties' distribution agreement included a provision in which the defendant agreed to impose a United States "geo-bloc" on its VOD streaming service to prevent U.S. consumers from streaming the programming appearing on the defendant's website. In violation of this provision, the defendant used versions of its programming that did not contain any geo-blocs, thus potentially allowing viewers in the U.S. to stream the programming to their computers in the U.S.

Though acknowledging that it could have sued the defendant for breach of the distribution agreement, the plaintiff elected instead to obtain copyright registrations for 51 of the programs and sue the defendant for infringing the plaintiff's public performance rights. Thus, the question presented to the district court was whether the defendant, acting entirely outside the U.S., could nonetheless be held liable for making available non-geo-blocked versions of its programming on its website in Poland. As the district court acknowledged, the only evidence that supported the plaintiff's claims of infringement in the U.S. were the activities of the plaintiff's own lawyers, who streamed the programming to their domestic law office computers. Despite the absence of evidence that anyone else in the U.S. ever accessed the defendant's VOD website in Poland in order to stream the copyrighted performances into the U.S., the district court nonetheless concluded that the defendant had willfully infringed the plaintiff's public performance rights. Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A., 222 F. Supp. 3d 95, 106-107 (2016). Ultimately, the district court awarded the plaintiff over $3 million in statutory damages. Spanski Enterprises, Inc. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A., No. 12-cv-957 (TSC), 2017 WL 598465 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2017).

Surprisingly, the district court gave almost no consideration of whether defendant's purely extraterritorial conduct gave rise to a cognizable claim under the U.S. Copyright Act. The only reference to the subject is in the opinion's final footnote, where the court states:

"While the infringing content was streamed from overseas into the U.S., "with respect to extraterritoriality, the Court adopts the reasoning in Automattic Inc. v. Steiner, from the Northern District of California, which held that copyright infringement that commenced abroad but was completed in the United States was not wholly extraterritorial, and thus the Copyright Act covered the defendant's conduct.'"

222 F. Supp. 3d at 113, n.3.

The basis for the district court's reliance on the Automattic case is puzzling in light of the significantly different factual situation that gave rise to the claims in that case. In Automattic, the defendant, a resident of the United Kingdom, sent repeated communications to the plaintiff website operator in California demanding the removal of particular blog posts by the plaintiff blogger as "infringing." In response to the defendant's demands, the plaintiff website owner expended time and financial resources investigating the defendant's claims. Ultimately, the website operator concluded the claims were false and misleading. The website operator and the blogger then brought suit against the defendant in California under section 115(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for making misrepresentations and abusing the takedown system.

The district court found two separate grounds on which the defendant's conduct was subject to the jurisdiction of federal courts in California – neither of which are present in the Spanski Enterprises matter. First, the website operator had required the defendant to accept the operator's terms of service as a condition for filing his takedown notice. Those terms included a forum selection clause identifying "state and federal courts located in San Francisco County, California" as the "proper venue for disputes arising" from use of the website operator's site. Automattic Inc. v. Steiner, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The district court found that by agreeing to the website operator's terms of use, the defendant had "consented[ed] to personal jurisdiction in California." Id. at 1022. Second, the court found that the defendant's multiple communications of his allegedly fraudulent takedown notices to the website operator in California satisfied the requirements for exercise of California's long-arm jurisdictional statute, which the court found to be "coextensive with federal due process requirements." Id. By contrast, the defendant in Spanski Enterprises never overtly sought to avail itself of the benefits of U.S. laws.

Moreover, the court in Automattic stated unequivocally that in order to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, it is necessary to demonstrate "'something more' than a 'foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state' to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction." Id. at 1023, quoting Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000). The necessity of showing "something more" was not addressed by the district court in Spanski Enterprises. Instead, the district court focused on the defendant's inability to provide a credible explanation for its conduct. The district court found that the standard configuration for the defendant's Copyright Management System (CMS) was to geo-bloc access from computers in the U.S. From this, the district court concluded that the defendant must have intentionally revised the designations in its CMS in order to create non-geo-blocked copies and then tried to conceal that fact by "intentional[ly] manipulat[ing]" documents produced during discovery in order to conceal the creation of the non-geo-blocked versions. 222 F. Supp. 3d at 106-107. However, despite such patently improper conduct, there was no finding that the defendant had undertaken any other affirmative conduct to induce U.S. viewers to access its Polish website. Thus, the district court found that the defendant had infringed the rights of the U.S. copyright holder merely by permitting programming to appear on its website in Poland that was not geo-blocked for the U.S. Such conduct seems considerably less than the "something more" required by the Automattic case.

Further complicating matters is that resolution of whether U.S. copyright law reaches the defendant's conduct in this case may hinge on whether the Copyright Act requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant engaged in "volitional conduct" as a prerequisite to finding liability. Even though copyright liability is sometimes referred to as a strict liability offense, courts have nonetheless required the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant engaged in some "volitional conduct" that resulted in the infringement. See, e.g., Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[V]olitional conduct is an important element of direct liability."); CoStar Group., Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th Cir. 2004) ("[W]e hold that the automatic copying, storage, and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP strictly liable for copyright infringement under §§ 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act."). Here, the defendant contends it cannot be held liable for infringement because its VOD content delivery system is not itself infringing and that any unauthorized performances of the programs in the U.S. was caused by its website users (in this case, plaintiff's lawyers) who selected the content to view and thereby automatically triggered the transmission to the requesting party's computer.

Resolving this issue will necessarily require the Court of Appeals to determine (1) whether the Copyright Act may be interpreted to impose a separate "volitional conduct" requirement following the Supreme Court's decision in American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498 (2014); and (2) if the Copyright Act does impose such a requirement, whether a showing of "volitional conduct" amounts to requiring the plaintiff to show that the defendant was the "proximate cause" of the infringing conduct.

This appeal also raises the issue whether the defendant's automated VOD delivery system is shielded from liability under the Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). In Sony, the Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer of the Betamax machine could not be held contributorily liable for its customers' infringing activities because the device was "capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses." Id. at 442. As the Court explained, "[T]he sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Id. Similarly, the defendant argues that it cannot be liable for copyright infringement because the maintenance of non-geo-blocked programming on the defendant's VOD website for the roughly 38 million Polish speakers who live in Poland constitutes a substantial noninfringing use.

Finally, this appeal raises the issue of whether copyright liability can be predicated solely on a party's failure to take additional precautions that would prevent others from engaging in infringing conduct. As noted above, the parties specifically negotiated a provision in the distribution agreement requiring the defendant to geo-bloc access to its Polish VOD system. This is seemingly a recognition by the parties that such geo-blocking is not required as a matter of law. However, the district court's ruling now elevates geo-blocking to a legal necessity in order to avoid being sued in U.S. courts for copyright infringement. As one court has warned, such an extension of the territorial reach of U.S. copyright law "would effectively mandate geo-blocking for any website operator seeking to avoid suit in the United States," which in turn "could limit U.S. residents' access to what is appropriately called the World Wide Web." (Triple Up Ltd. v. Youku Tudon Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2017) (emphasis in original). Given the stakes involved, we hope the Court of Appeal's decision in Spanski Enterprises clarifies the factual showing necessary to extend U.S. copyright liability to transnational transmissions of copyrighted works over the internet.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions