Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 157 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MARIA SCHNEIDER, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-04423-JD
`
`
`ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, and AST Publishing allege that
`
`defendants YouTube and Google (together, YouTube) facilitate copyright infringement through
`
`the use of a two-tiered copyright enforcement system. In plaintiffs’ view, YouTube provides
`
`“powerful copyright owners,” such as major studios and recording companies, with access to
`
`Content ID, a copyright management tool that allows owners to block uploads of infringing works,
`
`monetize infringement, and track viewership statistics of infringing works. Dkt. No. 99 ¶¶ 1-2
`
`(amended complaint). “Ordinary owners” such as plaintiffs are denied access to Content ID,
`
`which is said to make it impossible for them to police their copyrights, resulting in widespread
`
`piracy and infringement that they cannot meaningfully address. Id.
`
`YouTube asks to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 103. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and dismissal is
`
`denied.
`
`To state a claim for copyright infringement, plaintiffs must allege (1) ownership of the
`
`allegedly infringed material and (2) a violation by defendants of one of the exclusive rights
`
`conferred by the Copyright Act. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th
`
`Cir. 2007); see also UMG Recordings v. Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 157 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`have done so here. The amended complaint alleges that at least one plaintiff owns each of the
`
`works at issue and that YouTube infringed those works by displaying infringing videos. Dkt. No.
`
`99 ¶¶ 16-17, 60 n.7, 64, 66-72, 74-75, 78-79.
`
`YouTube’s multiple arguments for dismissal are unavailing. It says that the phrases
`
`“including” and “these works as millions of other works” in the amended complaint indicate an
`
`attempt to allege claims for unidentified works. Dkt. No. 103 at 3, 6. The point is not well taken.
`
`YouTube unduly slights the fact that the amended complaint specifically identifies allegedly
`
`infringed works owned by each plaintiff. This is enough to provide fair notice to YouTube of the
`
`claims against it.
`
`YouTube’s suggestion that the amended complaint founders on a heightened pleading
`
`requirement is also misdirected. Dkt. No. 103 at 7. The allegations of infringement are sufficient
`
`to give YouTube fair notice of the claims against it, which is all that Rule 8 requires. See, e.g.,
`
`Dkt. No. 99 ¶¶ 64, 71-72, 74, 78; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
`
`YouTube says that plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled ownership of certain works. Dkt.
`
`No. 103 at 8. For example, it has proffered Copyright Office records that are said to cast doubt on
`
`Uniglobe’s exclusive rights for three feature films. See Dkt. No. 104; Dkt. No. 99 ¶¶ 66-69. But
`
`this is a motion to dismiss, and the Court declines to take into account such matters that are well
`
`outside the amended complaint. See Whitaker v. AMT Tech, Inc., No. 21-cv-03045-JD, Dkt. No.
`
`18 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021) (“the sufficiency of a complaint for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes is
`
`determined in the first instance within the four corners of the complaint”). In addition, the
`
`amended complaint plausibly alleges that Uniglobe and AST Publishing own foreign works and
`
`that the works are exempt from the registration requirements of the Copyright Act. See Dkt. No.
`
`99 ¶¶ 70, 75-76.
`
`YouTube contends that Schneider’s claims for 28 works added to the amended complaint,
`
`Dkt. No. 99 ¶ 60 n.7, should be dismissed because she did not register copyrights for those works
`
`prior to filing the original complaint. Dkt. No. 103 at 10-11. The Copyright Act states that “no
`
`civil action” for copyright infringement “shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of
`
`the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 157 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“[R]egistration is a precondition to filing an action for copyright infringement.” Gold Value Int'l
`
`Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, 925 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Fourth Est.
`
`Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 886 (2019) (“[R]egistration occurs,
`
`and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office
`
`registers a copyright.”).
`
`It is true that some courts in this district have held that plaintiffs cannot “cure” failures to
`
`meet the registration requirement with amended complaints. See, e.g., Kifle v. YouTube LLC, No.
`
`21-cv-01752-CRB, 2021 WL 1530942, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021); Izmo, Inc. v. Roadster,
`
`Inc., No. 18-cv-06092-NC, 2019 WL 2359228, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2019). The Court need
`
`not reach the question of whether it might agree with that conclusion. That is because plaintiffs
`
`here, unlike the ones in other cases, are not seeking to cure any defects. Schneider’s works
`
`identified in the original complaint were properly registered. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 60. In the amended
`
`complaint, Schneider added new claims for works that were registered prior to the filing of the
`
`amended complaint. See Dkt. 99 ¶ 60 n.7. Consequently, the amended complaint complies with
`
`the registration requirement.
`
`YouTube’s scienter point is equally uncompelling. It says that plaintiffs did not plausibly
`
`allege scienter for the claim that YouTube removed copyright management information (CMI) in
`
`violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). Dkt. No. 103 at 13-14. Section 1202(b) states that “[n]o person
`
`shall . . . intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information . . . knowing, or . . .
`
`having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an
`
`infringement of any” copyright.
`
`Our circuit has determined that Section 1202(b) requires “the defendant to possess the
`
`mental state of knowing, or having a reasonable basis to know, that his actions will induce, enable,
`
`facilitate, or conceal infringement.” Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 673 (9th Cir. 2018)
`
`(internal quotations omitted). “The mental state requirement in Section 1202(b) must have a more
`
`specific application than the universal possibility of encouraging infringement; specific allegations
`
`as to how identifiable infringements ‘will’ be affected are necessary.” Id. at 674.
`
`Plaintiffs have alleged that here. The amended complaint states that YouTube knew that
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 157 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`files containing audio and/or video works routinely contain CMI, that CMI is valuable for
`
`protecting copyright holders, and that the distribution of works with missing CMI on YouTube has
`
`induced, enabled, facilitated, and concealed copyright infringement. Dkt. No. 99 ¶¶ 83-86, 101.
`
`The plausible inference from these and similar allegations is that YouTube removed the CMI from
`
`plaintiffs’ works with knowledge that doing so carried a “substantial risk” of inducing
`
`infringement. See Stevens, 899 F. 3d at 676.
`
`YouTube’s concern about potential remedies, Dkt. No. 103 at 12, is premature. The
`
`question of what, if any, remedies may be due to plaintiffs will be taken up as warranted at a later
`
`time.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`