The Ninth Circuit declined to review its earlier opinion in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders must consider fair use before seeking to remove allegedly infringing content from websites such as YouTube and Facebook. The law in California and other Ninth Circuit states remains that, prior to issuing a DMCA takedown notice, a copyright holder must have a subjective, good faith belief that allegedly infringing content is not making fair use of the copyrighted work. Our prior discussion of that important decision is here.

The original September 14, 2015 opinion offered some guidance on what would satisfy the good faith belief requirement — including the use of computer algorithms that automatically identify when nearly the entirety of a copyrighted work is used. The amended March 17, 2016 decision, however, has stripped most of that guidance away. In particular, the court removed the discussion of computer algorithms and the notion that a copyright holder's consideration of fair use "need not be searching or intensive" to satisfy the good faith belief requirement. What remains instead are foreboding statements such as "a copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to . . . liability." The amended decision has thus made it more difficult for a copyright holder to know whether they have undertaken a proper fair use analysis. As a result, many media companies and other holders of copyright portfolios may need to change the way they deal with infringing content on the Internet, particularly if they are not performing a fair use analysis prior to issuing a takedown notice.

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.