Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`DAVID H. KRAMER, SBN 168452
`MAURA L. REES, SBN 191698
`LAUREN GALLO WHITE, SBN 309075
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile:
`(650) 565-5100
`Email:
`dkramer@wsgr.com
`
`mrees@wsgr.com
`lwhite@wsgr.com
`
`
`BRIAN M. WILLEN (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
`Email:
`bwillen@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
`)
`CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST
`)
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE
`PUBLISHING LTD., individually and on behalf
`)
`LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`of all others similarly situated,
`)
`JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`)
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`Plaintiffs,
`)
`)
`)
`Date:
`October 13, 2022
`)
`Time:
`10:00 am
`)
`Courtroom: 11
`Hon. James Donato
`)
`Judge:
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendants
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`
`v.
`
`PIRATE MONITOR LTD, PIRATE MONITOR
`LLC, and GÁBOR CSUPÓ,
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................... 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .............................................................................. 2
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 3
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 10
`I.
`YOUTUBE HAS MULTIPLE LICENSES TO SCHNEIDER’S WORKS. ......... 10
`Through Her Publisher, Schneider Granted YouTube a License to
`A.
`Use Her Entire Catalog of Compositions. ................................................. 10
`
`B.
`
`Under YouTube’s Terms of Service, Schneider Granted YouTube a
`License to the Works-in-Suit that She and Her Agents Uploaded to
`YouTube. ................................................................................................... 14
`
`II.
`
`SCHNEIDER’S CMI CLAIMS FAIL ON MULTIPLE GROUNDS. ................. 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Schneider Failed to Identify Any CMI Removed by YouTube. ............... 17
`
`Schneider Failed to Establish that YouTube Acted with the
`Requisite Scienter. ..................................................................................... 18
`
`Schneider Authorized YouTube to Remove Embedded Metadata. .......... 21
`
`III.
`
`HUNDREDS OF SCHNEIDER’S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`CLAIMS AND HER § 1202(b) CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED. ...................... 22
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital, Inc.,
`821 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`Bus. Casual Holdings, LLC v. YouTube, LLC,
`2022 WL 837596 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022) .................................................................... 14
`
`Cambridge Elecs. Corp. v. MGA Elecs., Inc.,
`227 F.R.D. 313 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Chem. Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.,
`169 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Color Image Apparel, Inc. v. Jaeschke,
`2022 WL 2643476 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2022) ..................................................................... 23
`
`Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7753406 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) .................................................................... 22
`
`Fahmy v. Jay-Z,
`835 F. Supp. 2d 783 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................... 23
`
`Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc.,
`661 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. USA, Inc.,
`209 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (2012) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Graham v. James,
`144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................................................. 11, 12, 13
`
`Great Minds v. Office Depot, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Harrington v. Pinterest, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4033031 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2021) .............................................................. 16, 20
`
`John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Solomon Baum Irrevocable
`Fam. Life Ins. Tr.,
`783 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp. v. City of New York,
`621 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.,
`460 N.E.2d 1077 (N.Y. 1984) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-ii-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.,
`660 N.E.2d 415 (N.Y. 1995) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Phx. Techs., Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.,
`2017 WL 1957042 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) .................................................................. 19
`
`Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg,
`2022 WL 2784818 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2022) ................................................................... 20
`
`Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.,
`194 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ....................................................................... 18, 21
`
`Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................... 16, 19, 20, 21
`
`United States Naval Inst. v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc.,
`936 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1991) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,
`718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ........................................................................... 3, 16
`
`Viacom Int’l. Inc. v YouTube, Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ................................................................................. 3
`
`Victor Elias Photography, LLC,
`2022 WL 3330350 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2022) ............................................................. 19, 20
`
`Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
`705 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................... 23
`
`STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(4) ........................................................................................................................ 13
`
`17 U.S.C. § 507(b) .................................................................................................................... 2, 22
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202 ........................................................................................................ 2, 7, 8, 10, 16,
`17, 20, 21, 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) ............................................................................................... 1, 16, 18, 19, 20,
`21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) ....................................................................................................................... 16
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-iii-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`13 Williston on Contracts § 38:7 (4th ed.) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Dani Deahl, Metadata is the Biggest Little Problem Plaguing the Music Industry,
`The Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18531476/music-industry-
`songroyalties-metadata-credit-problems ........................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-iv-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., Defendants-
`Counterclaimants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC (“YouTube”) will move the Court for an
`order granting summary judgment against the claims of Plaintiff Maria Schneider.
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, YouTube requests that the
`Court grant summary judgment against Plaintiff Maria Schneider’s claims for copyright
`infringement and for violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Maria Schneider, a jazz composer, sued YouTube for copyright infringement and
`improper removal of her copyright management information (“CMI”) in violation of 17 U.S.C.
`§ 1202(b). Those claims, also asserted on behalf of a putative class of copyright holders
`throughout the world, are meritless for myriad reasons. Schneider’s infringement claims fail
`because she licensed use of her works on YouTube in at least two different ways. Her CMI
`claims fail because she cannot make out a prima facie case and because YouTube was authorized
`to remove any supposed CMI. In addition, much of her case is time barred.
`In 2008, Schneider gave her publisher, Modern Works Music Publishing (“MWP”), the
`exclusive right to license her compositions. MWP then granted YouTube a blanket license to use
`on YouTube all works it controlled—including Schneider’s entire catalog of compositions. By
`itself, the MWP license disposes of Schneider’s case. But YouTube has additional licenses to
`Schneider’s works. For example, under the YouTube Terms of Service Agreement (“TOS”),
`Schneider and her agents separately licensed YouTube to use any content they uploaded to
`YouTube, including Works-in-Suit.
`Schneider’s attempts to evade these licenses are specious. For the MWP license, she
`claims her publisher did not obtain her specific consent before licensing her works to YouTube.
`Even assuming that were true, it makes no difference because Schneider’s consent was not a
`condition precedent to MWP’s right to license her works. The license is valid and dispositive.
`And as to the other license, Schneider has said nothing at all.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-1-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`
`Schneider also has charged YouTube with improperly removing CMI that she claims may
`have been buried in the metadata of videos uploaded by other users to YouTube. But Schneider
`has refused, despite repeated requests, to identify the supposed CMI or the videos allegedly
`containing it. Even putting that aside, she cannot demonstrate that YouTube’s removal of any
`CMI was without the requisite “authority of the copyright owner or the law,” because her
`publisher granted YouTube blanket rights to reformat videos containing her works. Further,
`Schneider has failed to demonstrate the requisite scienter for a § 1202 claim. Put simply,
`Schneider cannot show that YouTube intentionally removed CMI, much less that it did so
`knowing (or with reason to know) that such removal would foment infringement.
`Finally, Schneider faces insuperable time bars for many of her infringement claims, and
`for her § 1202 claim as a whole. When Schneider created her YouTube account and uploaded
`videos to YouTube, she agreed to YouTube’s TOS, including its provision that any claim
`relating to YouTube’s services be brought within one year of accrual. Beyond that, the
`governing statute of limitations requires her claims be brought within three years of accrual
`(17 U.S.C. § 507(b))—that is, when a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the
`claims. Schneider admits to having actual knowledge of dozens of her infringement claims years
`before she sued, and discovery shows she had constructive knowledge of even more. She also
`had actual knowledge of YouTube’s supposed § 1202 violations more than three years before she
`sued.
`
`Schneider had no cause to bring claims in her own right, much less on behalf of a
`putative class. The Court should summarily dispose of them and enter judgment against her.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Whether Schneider’s copyright infringement claims are barred by YouTube’s
`MWP license and the license Schneider and her agents agreed to when agreeing to YouTube’s
`TOS.
`
`2.
`Whether Schneider’s CMI claim is barred by her failure to come forward with
`evidence that YouTube removed her CMI, that YouTube acted with the required scienter, and
`that any such removal was unauthorized.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-2-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`3.
`Whether Schneider’s claims are time-barred by the one-year contractual
`limitations provision in YouTube’s TOS or by the three-year statute of limitations.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The YouTube service. Since its founding in 2005, YouTube has provided a platform for
`users to share their video creations with the world. Today, YouTube serves as an unparalleled
`medium for original creative expression, offering a worldwide audience access to an
`extraordinary diversity of content.
`YouTube has devoted substantial resources to ensuring that copyrighted material
`appearing on its service is authorized by copyright holders. Declaration of Joanne Suk (“Suk
`Decl.”) ¶ 3. YouTube has obtained blanket licenses from thousands of major copyright holders,
`including major record labels, music publishers, television studios, and sports leagues. See, e.g.,
`Suk Decl. ¶ 3. In the main, these licenses allow for broad use of massive libraries of copyrighted
`content throughout the YouTube service. See, e.g., Suk Decl. ¶ 3. In addition, ordinary users
`may upload and share their videos via the service at no cost, thereby granting YouTube and other
`users a license to the copyrighted material in their videos and representing that they have the
`rights to do so. See, e.g., Declaration of Chenyuan Zhu (“Zhu Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-8.
`YouTube recognizes that despite its efforts to host only authorized material on the
`service, users sometimes upload videos that they have no rights to share. To address this,
`YouTube complies in all respects with the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, enabling
`copyright holders to quickly and efficiently direct YouTube to remove allegedly infringing
`materials from the service. See Zhu Decl. ¶ 2; see also, e.g., Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,
`718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d in relevant part by Viacom Int’l, Inc. v.
`YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012); Viacom Int’l. Inc. v YouTube, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d
`110, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting summary judgment to YouTube against copyright
`infringement claims brought by leading studio and putative class of copyright holders; DMCA
`shields YouTube from all such claims based on materials uploaded to the service by users). But
`YouTube goes well beyond the DMCA and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-3-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`cutting-edge technologies to assist copyright holders in protecting against the unauthorized use
`of their work on the service. Zhu Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.
`The YouTube Terms of Service. By creating a YouTube account, users gain access to a
`host of YouTube services at no charge, including video hosting, a global audience for their
`content, social networking and analytics capabilities, and access to ground-breaking copyright
`management tools. Zhu Decl. ¶ 7; see also Declaration of Paul N. Harold (“Harold Decl.”) Ex.
`21 (“Schneider Dep. Tr.”) 104:3-19 (testifying that YouTube helped her “to reach an audience
`after COVID” and did so for “free”); Harold Ex. 22 (“Le Claire Dep. Tr.”) 85:16-86:9, 90:13-16
`(testifying that YouTube provided free video hosting services and “another way to get more
`people to learn about” Schneider). Users can also make money from videos they upload. See,
`e.g., Le Claire Dep. Tr. 123:3-18 (acknowledging a $23.86 payment from YouTube to Schneider
`under a YouTube advertising program). When creating an account or uploading a video, a user
`must assent to YouTube’s TOS in exchange for access to these free services and tools. Zhu
`Decl. ¶ 7. Schneider agreed to the TOS on several instances, including when she created her
`“Maria Schneider Official Page” account in 2012. Schneider Dep. Tr. 77:22-78:2 (“Q. In
`creating this YouTube account, you agreed to YouTube’s terms of service; right? A. I don’t
`recall the terms of service. But, yes.”).
`Users agreeing to the TOS grant YouTube extensive rights to any content they upload.
`This TOS license grants both YouTube and other users a license to broadly use such content
`throughout the service. See Zhu Ex. 1 § 6(C). Users also agree to a bilateral clause requiring
`that any claims relating to the service be brought within one year of accrual. Id. § 14.1
`Schneider’s Works-in-Suit. Schneider asserts copyright infringement claims against
`YouTube based on 78 works (“Works-in-Suit”). Dkt. 99 (“FAC”) ¶ 60 & n.7; see Dkt. 98 at 1
`(requiring FAC to “identify[] all copyrighted works”). Seventy-six of these Works-in-Suit are
`
`
`1 The TOS provision, entitled “Limitation on Legal Action,” provides: “YOU AND
`YOUTUBE AGREE THAT ANY CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO
`THE SERVICES MUST COMMENCE WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE CAUSE OF
`ACTION ACCRUES. OTHERWISE, SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION IS PERMANENTLY
`BARRED.” Zhu Ex. 1 § 14.
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`-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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`musical compositions; accordingly, her copyright covers the music (e.g., as reflected in sheet
`music) but not a sound recording. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Schneider’s two remaining
`Works-in-Suit, Concert in the Garden and Vikings Anthem, are registered as sound recordings.
`Schneider has not identified any alleged infringements of these sound recordings from within the
`statute of limitations period. See infra at 22-24 & n.8.
`Schneider’s Administration Agreement. Songwriters typically contract with music
`publishers to administer their compositions. Suk Decl. ¶ 2. In 2008, Schneider contracted with
`ArtistShare Music Publishing LLC, entering into an Administration Agreement. As set forth in
`that agreement and as described by ArtistShare’s Chief Operating Officer, Dan Coleman,
`Schneider appointed ArtistShare as “the sole and exclusive Administrator” of her musical
`compositions. See Declaration of Dan Coleman (“Coleman Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3 & Ex. A
`(“Administration Agreement” or “Admin. Agreement”) § 6. Through this Agreement, Schneider
`granted ArtistShare “the exclusive right” to “license the performance and use of the
`Compositions” throughout the world. Admin. Agreement §§ 5-6. It also provided the exclusive
`worldwide right “to execute in [Schneider’s] name any licenses and agreements affecting the
`Compositions, including, but not limited to, licenses for mechanical reproduction, public
`performance, synchronization uses, the use of Compositions in connection with merchandising
`activities, and all so-called ‘digital’ or ‘new media’ uses of the Compositions.” Admin.
`Agreement §§ 5-6. The licensed Compositions included “all musical compositions, written or
`composed prior to or during the Term hereof, in whole or in part by [Schneider], or owned or
`controlled, directly or indirectly, by [Schneider] or any firm or corporation affiliated with or
`related to [Schneider] or which [Schneider] may form (the “Compositions”).” Admin.
`Agreement § 2; see also Coleman Decl. ¶ 3. Both Coleman and Schneider have confirmed that
`the Administration Agreement has not been terminated and remains in effect. Schneider Dep.
`Tr. 130:17-22; Coleman Decl. ¶ 3.
`In short, the Administration Agreement gave ArtistShare the “exclusive right” to license
`Schneider’s compositions. Admin. Agreement § 6. ArtistShare separately covenanted that it
`would “notify” Schneider and “obtain [her] prior written approval” for licenses it granted in most
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-5-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`cases. Admin. Agreement § 7. However, it would “deem” that Schneider consented if she did
`not respond to a request for approval within 10 business days. Admin. Agreement § 7. Licenses
`could also be granted without Schneider’s prior written approval: Section 7 expressly
`acknowledged that the publisher might not “obtain [Schneider’s] consent in each instance.” Id.
`And the parties agreed that a failure to obtain consent would breach the covenant only where it
`was intentional. Admin. Agreement § 7 (“any inadvertent failure to timely obtain [Schneider’s]
`consent will not be deemed a breach of this Agreement.”).
`Coleman is also the Co-Founder and President of MWP—one of ArtistShare’s two
`members and its 50% owner. Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 1-2. He personally has worked with Schneider
`for the past fourteen years, since her Administration Agreement went into effect. Schneider Dep.
`Tr. 131:8-11. Coleman has explained that ArtistShare legally assigned all its duties to MWP
`under § 14A of the Administration Agreement. Coleman Decl. ¶ 4. And under the assignment,
`MWP acts as “the worldwide subpublisher” for ArtistShare with respect to Schneider’s
`compositions. Coleman Decl. ¶ 4. Schneider acknowledges that her works “are administered by
`ModernWorks.” Harold Ex. 3 (Schneider stating that her works “are administered by
`ModernWorks”); Harold Ex. 4 (Schneider referring to “Modern Works” as “[m]y publishing
`administrator”); Schneider Dep. Tr. 131:8-11. And she directs licensing inquiries to MWP. E.g.,
`Harold Ex. 5; Harold Ex. 6.
`MWP’s Publishing Licensing Agreement with Google. In 2014, MWP licensed to
`Google, YouTube’s parent company, all musical compositions that MWP “owned or controlled”
`for use on YouTube. Suk Ex. 1 (“Publishing Licensing Agreement” or “PLA”) Ex. A (definition
`for “Publisher Composition”). This Publishing License Agreement granted to Google a
`“license[] to (i) Store, Reformat, make On-Demand Streams of, make Conditional Downloads of,
`and Display Publisher Compositions as have been embodied in (A) User Videos. . . and to make
`available Publisher Compositions on and through the Google Services and Embedded YouTube
`Video Players” and to “(ii) reproduce, distribute, and prepare derivative works (including
`synchronization rights) based upon the Publisher Compositions.” PLA § 2(a).
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-6-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`
`Schneider’s compositions (including those constituting Works-in-Suit) are among the
`many thousands of compositions that MWP licensed to YouTube under the PLA, as MWP has
`“control of the underlying compositional copyright[s]” in Schneider’s works through the
`Administration Agreement. See Admin. Agreement §§ 5-6; Coleman Decl. ¶ 4.
`MWP’s control of Schneider’s works was manifest in more than just its written
`authorization from her. It was also demonstrated by MWP’s use of YouTube’s Content ID
`system on Schneider’s behalf, as provided for in the PLA. See Coleman Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. Content
`ID utilizes proprietary technology to allow eligible users to “claim” and automatically track,
`block, and/or share revenue associated with third-party user videos that they believe incorporate
`their content. See Harold Ex. 7. MWP used Content ID in connection with multiple Schneider
`musical works. Coleman Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. C (discussing delivery of Schneider works to YouTube
`for use in Content ID). Schneider “kn[ew]” that MWP “ha[s] a deal” with YouTube. Coleman
`Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. B. Schneider regularly received pass-through royalties from MWP that
`YouTube paid MWP for the monetization of Schneider’s works on the platform. See Coleman
`Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. D. And she was well aware of her ability to use Content ID under the PLA—she
`simply chose not to exercise that ability in some instances and for some works. See Harold Ex. 8
`(
`
`
`); Coleman Decl. ¶ 6.
`Schneider’s lawsuit. On July 2, 2020, Schneider and Pirate Monitor LTD, a British
`Virgin Islands company purporting to own copyrights in Hungarian films, sued Defendants for
`copyright infringement based on the presence on YouTube of videos allegedly containing their
`copyrighted content. Dkt. 1. They also charged YouTube with violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202
`based on YouTube’s supposedly improper removal of CMI from unidentified videos. Plaintiffs
`purported to bring the action on behalf of themselves and two sprawling putative classes of
`copyright holders around the world.
`Pirate Monitor dismissed its claims with prejudice (see Dkt. 66 (dismissal)) shortly after
`YouTube uncovered proof of a wide-ranging fraud it orchestrated on the service (see Dkt. 60
`(amended counterclaims)), and after Pirate Monitor acknowledged it did not own at least one of
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-7-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`the copyrighted works it had asserted. See Harold Decl. ¶ 27 & Ex. 24 (email from plaintiffs re
`“error” in complaint). Two additional plaintiffs subsequently joined the lawsuit, AST Publishing
`Ltd., a Russian audio book publisher, and Uniglobe Entertainment, which purports to own
`copyrights in three motion pictures. Although their claims are not the subject of this motion, it is
`plain they suffer from dispositive flaws of their own, including admitted licenses of their Works-
`in-Suit to YouTube. See Harold Ex. 25 at 9-14; Harold Ex. 26 at 6-7.
`Schneider’s CMI claim. Schneider has done virtually nothing in discovery to support
`her unusual § 1202 removal-of-CMI claim. Such claims are generally directed against parties
`that remove prototypical CMI like visible watermarks or copyright notices from works in order
`to facilitate infringing sales. Here, Schneider contends certain unidentified metadata embedded
`in the original video files that users upload might contain details that might, in theory, qualify as
`CMI for her musical compositions, even though that metadata is not visible in the video itself.
`Per her claim, when YouTube transcodes the original files to make the user videos accessible, it
`fails to retain the embedded file metadata, including whatever CMI that metadata may have
`contained. FAC ¶¶ 33, 83.
`In response to a YouTube interrogatory, Schneider did not identify a single video
`containing embedded metadata constituting her CMI. Even for videos Schneider directed to be
`uploaded to YouTube, she did not put CMI in the metadata. See, e.g., Schneider Dep. Tr.
`215:12-19; Le Claire Dep. Tr. 191:15-20; Harold Ex. 23 (“Bornheimer Dep. Tr.”) 140:19-20.
`Further, even if any videos actually contained Schneider’s CMI in the embedded metadata,
`Schneider offered no evidence that YouTube knew such CMI was there or intentionally removed
`it without authorization, much less that it did so knowing or with reason to know that such
`removal would foment infringement of her copyrighted works. See Harold Ex. 10 at 16-22.
`Schneider’s discovery of alleged infringements and CMI removal. Schneider did not
`identify a single alleged infringement of a copyright in her complaint. After a series of discovery
`disputes, the Court ordered Schneider to provide “a final list of [alleged] infringements” to
`YouTube by February 25, 2022. Dkt. 98. On that date, she provided a list of 381 alleged
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC AND GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF
`MARIA SCHNEIDER
`
`
`-8-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 164 Filed 08/26/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`infringements, identifying by URL the videos on the YouTube service that she contended
`infringed the Works-in-Suit that she had listed in her complaint. Harold Ex. 1.
`YouTube served an interrogatory asking Schneider to provide the date she first learned of
`each infringement and to detail how she became aware of each infringement. Harold Ex. 12 at 4-
`8. After several amendments and corrections to her respo