Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`STEVEN VANCE, et al.,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant.
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`January 14, 2022
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`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
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Flickr and the Yahoo-Created YFCC100M Dataset .............................................. 3
`B.
`The IBM-Created DiF Dataset ............................................................................... 4
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Flickr Photos ......................................................................................... 5
`D.
`Microsoft Contractor Benjamin Skrainka’s Download of the IBM DiF
`Dataset.................................................................................................................... 6
`Microsoft Student Intern Samira Samadi’s Download of the IBM DiF
`Dataset.................................................................................................................... 8
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 10
`I.
`Illinois’ BIPA Statute Does Not—and Cannot Constitutionally—Apply to
`Microsoft’s Out-of-State Activities. ................................................................................ 10
`A.
`BIPA Does Not Apply Extraterritorially and Microsoft Did Not Engage in
`Conduct “Primarily and Substantially” in Illinois. .............................................. 11
`1.
`The Undisputed Facts Confirm Microsoft’s Conduct Occurred
`Entirely Outside Illinois ........................................................................... 11
`Microsoft’s Alleged BIPA Violation Had No Connection to Illinois ..... 13
`Plaintiffs’ Illinois Residency Alone Cannot Satisfy Illinois’
`Extraterritoriality Doctrine. ...................................................................... 15
`Applying BIPA to Microsoft’s Out-of-State Conduct Here Would Violate
`the Dormant Commerce Clause. .......................................................................... 17
`1.
`Plaintiffs May Not Use BIPA to Regulate Conduct Occurring
`Entirely Outside of Illinois’ Borders........................................................ 18
`BIPA’s Application Here Would Conflict with Washington and
`New York Biometric Privacy Law. ......................................................... 19
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the Unjust Enrichment Claim. ............ 21
`II.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 23
`
`2.
`3.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`B.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - i
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris,
`794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................18
`
`Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................22
`
`Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ...............................................................................22
`
`Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith,
`889 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................17, 18, 19
`
`David K. Lindemuth Co. v. Shannon Fin. Corp.,
`637 F. Supp. 991 (N.D. Cal. 1986) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc.,
`343 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................13
`
`Hesketh v. Total Renal Care, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5761610 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 3, 2021) (Robart, J.) ...................................................10
`
`Iancu v. Brunetti,
`139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Co., Inc.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................20
`
`McGoveran v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4502089 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021) .................................................................... passim
`
`Monroy v. Shutterfly,
`2017 WL 4099846 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) ....................................................................16, 17
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Miller,
`10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................20
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Rivera v. Google,
`238 F.Supp.3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .......................................................................................16
`
`Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc.,
`784 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................18, 19
`
`Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan, LLC v. Am. Envtl. Energy, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1337303 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2013) ...........................................................................16
`
`United States v. Pappadopoulos,
`64 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. United
`States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`552 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2008) .......................................................................................16
`
`State Cases
`
`Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc.,
`967 N.E.2d 1177 (N.Y. 2012) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Landau v. CNA Fin. Corp.,
`886 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. 2008) ..............................................................................................11
`
`People v. Scheib,
`390 N.E.2d 872 (Ill. 1979) .......................................................................................................11
`
`State Statutes
`
`740 ILCS 14 ........................................................................................................................... passim
`
`740 ILCS 14/5(b) ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(b) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`New York City Code § 22-1201 ....................................................................................................20
`
`New York City Code § 22-1202 ....................................................................................................20
`
`RCW 19.375 ..............................................................................................................................1, 19
`
`RCW 19.375.010(1) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`RCW 19.375.010(4) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`RCW 19.375.020 ...........................................................................................................................19
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`RCW 19.375.020(1) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`RCW 19.375.101(5) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ...........................................................................................................................23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................10
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`U.S. Constitution Commerce Clause .............................................................................................17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Bart Thomee et al., “YFCC100M: The New Data in Multimedia Research,” ................................3
`
`Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 2016, at 66,
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2812802 .........................................................................3, 4
`
`Creative Commons, About The Licenses, https://creative commons.org/licenses/ ...............3, 5, 14
`
`Flickr, How to Change Your License on Flickr https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4404078674324-Change-Your-Photo-s-License-in-Flickr (accessed
`Dec. 6, 2021) ..............................................................................................................................3
`
`State of Delaware, Department of State: Division of Corporations, Business
`Search Results for Flickr Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.,
`https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
`(accessed Dec. 6, 2021) .............................................................................................................3
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iv
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In February 2019, Microsoft downloaded the IBM Diversity in Faces Dataset (“DiF
`Dataset”), a dataset of publicly available photos (and related data) from around the world that,
`without Microsoft’s knowledge, apparently contained links to photos of Illinois residents.
`Microsoft downloaded the Dataset from Washington and New York, quickly determined it was
`not useful, and did not use it—for anything. This action presents the question whether
`Microsoft, a Washington-based company, can be held liable for statutory damages under the
`Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), even though it took no action in Illinois
`and had no knowledge that any photos or data regarding Illinois residents may have been in the
`Dataset. The answer is no. BIPA does not apply to Microsoft because it did not engage in the
`conduct that allegedly violated BIPA “primarily and substantially” in Illinois, as Illinois law
`requires. To hold otherwise would also violate the dormant commerce clause, as BIPA conflicts
`with the Washington Biometric Privacy Law and the law in New York—the states in which
`Microsoft did download the Dataset. And having done nothing with the Dataset, Microsoft was
`not unjustly enriched by it. The Court should grant summary judgment for Microsoft.1
`The IBM DiF Dataset is a large and diverse dataset of human faces that IBM, a New
`York company, created in New York to advance the study of fairness, accuracy, and bias in
`facial recognition technology. The DiF Dataset contains links to roughly 1 million publicly
`available photos taken all over the world, as well as annotations of data regarding some (but not
`all) of the faces in the photos. In early 2019, IBM offered its DiF Dataset to approved
`researchers, free of charge, for use in research only. One Microsoft contractor and one Microsoft
`post-graduate student intern each downloaded the DiF Dataset, using an online link from IBM,
`from Washington and New York respectively. Each did so to determine if the photos linked to in
`Dataset (not the data) would be useful in their research; each briefly evaluated some of the linked
`
`1 Microsoft has concurrently filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. If the Court grants this
`motion for summary judgment, it need not reach Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`photos in the Dataset; and each decided the Dataset didn’t meet their respective research needs.
`Neither used the Dataset, nor shared it with anyone else.
`Illinois residents Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk allege Microsoft (a) violated BIPA
`Section 15(b) merely by downloading the IBM DiF Dataset in Washington and New York
`without their consent—even though Microsoft could not have known their faces were in it; and
`(b) was allegedly unjustly enriched by downloading and allegedly profiting from its use of
`Plaintiffs’ biometric identifiers and information. The Court denied Microsoft’s motion to
`dismiss, concluding “more factual refinement” about “the circumstances around Microsoft’s
`attainment, possession and use of the Diversity in Faces dataset” was needed. Dkt. 43 at 8.
`On the now-developed and undisputed facts, the Court should grant Microsoft summary
`judgment for the following reasons:
`First, under settled Illinois law, BIPA does not apply extraterritorially here because
`Microsoft did not engage in any action in Illinois, much less “primarily and substantially” in
`Illinois, as the law requires. Microsoft did not download Plaintiffs’ alleged biometrics in Illinois,
`did not use the Dataset or any information in it for any purpose anywhere, could not have known
`Plaintiffs’ purported biometrics were in the Dataset, and did not have any reason to know the
`Dataset may contain links to Illinois residents’ photos, much less biometric identifiers. Plaintiffs
`ask the Court to adopt an absurd and untenable application of BIPA—one that would subject a
`defendant to statutory damages based solely on a brief interaction with some of the photos (and
`none of the alleged biometric data) in IBM’s DiF Dataset, all entirely outside Illinois.
`Second, even if the information in the DiF Dataset were biometric information or
`identifiers, Microsoft did not use that (or any other) information at all—so Plaintiffs have no
`unjust enrichment claim. Neither the contractor nor the intern reviewed or had any interest in the
`annotations in the IBM DiF Dataset, and neither shared the Dataset with anyone else. Microsoft
`simply received no “benefit” or “profit” from Plaintiffs’ biometric information or identifiers, and
`the Court should dismiss their unjust enrichment claim.
`
`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
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A. Flickr and the Yahoo-Created YFCC100M Dataset
`
`Flickr is a photo sharing website that allows users to upload and share photos with others
`online. Compl. ¶ 28. Between at least 2004 and 2014, Flickr users could choose to upload their
`photos under either an “All Rights Reserved” license or a “Creative Commons” license.”2 Under
`the former, the Flickr user retained the right to make copies and distribute their uploaded photos.
`Id. Under the latter, the Flickr user consented to the ability of third parties to copy, distribute,
`edit, and use the photos.3 The purpose of a Creative Commons license is to create a “digital
`commons, a pool of content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed, and built upon, all
`within the boundaries of copyright law.” Id.
`In 2014, Yahoo!—Flickr’s then-parent4—released to the public a dataset of about 100
`million Flickr photos uploaded to Flickr’s website between 2004 and 2014.5 The Yahoo-created
`dataset became known as “the Yahoo Flickr Creative Commons 100 Million Dataset
`(YFCC100M).”6 The YFCC100M dataset “is the largest public multimedia collection that has
`ever been released, comprising a total of 100 million media objects [i.e., photos] . . . all of which
`have been uploaded to Flickr between 2004 and 2014 and published under a [Creative
`Commons] commercial or non-commercial license.” Id. at 66. The YFCC100M dataset thus
`
`2 See Flickr, How to Change Your License on Flickr https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404078674324-
`Change-Your-Photo-s-License-in-Flickr (last visited Dec. 6, 2021) (describing the licenses supported by Flickr).
`3 Creative Commons, About The Licenses, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (last visited Nov. 29, 2021)
`(describing licenses as allowing “others [to] distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work”).
`4 Both Flickr, Inc. and Yahoo Inc. are Delaware corporations based in California. See State of Delaware,
`Department of State: Division of Corporations, Business Search Results for Flickr Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.,
`https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (last accessed Dec. 6, 2021). The Court may
`take judicial notice of information posted on a state government website because it is “readily verifiable and,
`therefore, the proper subject of judicial notice.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746, n.6
`(9th Cir. 2006).
`5 Compl. ¶ 29; Merler Decl. at Ex. A, M. Merler, Diversity in Faces (“IBM DiF Paper”).
`6 Bart Thomee et al., “YFCC100M: The New Data in Multimedia Research,” Communications of the ACM, 59(2),
`2016, at 66, available at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2812802 (“YFCC100M Paper”) at 64–73.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`includes only photos that Flickr users voluntarily allowed third parties to copy, distribute, edit,
`and use.7
`
`B. The IBM-Created DiF Dataset
`
`In 2019, researchers at IBM released the IBM DiF Dataset “to help advance the study of
`fairness and accuracy in face recognition technology.” IBM DiF Paper at 24. To create this
`dataset in compliance with “various copyright laws and privacy regulations,” the IBM
`researchers used only photos from the YFCC100M dataset subject to the Creative Commons
`license. Id. at 7-8. After selecting photos, the IBM researchers applied 10 different coding
`schemes and “annotations” from some of the photos in the dataset, including information related
`to some of the faces in some of the linked photos, such as “craniofacial distances” and “areas and
`ratios.” Id. at 9. They also included other demographic information about some of the faces in
`the photos, such as the estimated age and gender. Id. at 9, 14–16 (describing coding schemes for
`skin color, age prediction, and gender prediction). The information about the faces in the photos
`linked in the IBM DiF Dataset was “purely descriptive and designed to provide a mechanism to
`evaluate diversity in the dataset—not to provide a method of facial identification.” Merler Decl.
`¶ 7.
`
`The IBM researchers who created the DiF Dataset did so in New York, and IBM created
`and stored the Dataset on servers in New York. Id. at ¶ 8. IBM did not create the DiF Dataset in
`Illinois, did not store it on computers in Illinois, or did not otherwise take any actions involving
`Illinois with respect to the Dataset. Id. In addition, the “IBM RESEARCH DiF DATASET
`TERMS OF USE” prohibited recipients of the Dataset from “attempt[ing] to identify any
`individuals within the IBM Research DiF Dataset (unless required by law and with IBM’s prior
`written consent).” Merler Decl., Ex. H, IBM Research DiF Dataset Terms of Use at 3. After
`creating the IBM DiF Dataset, IBM made it available for download free of charge, to certain
`
`7 Id. at 66 (“Each media object included in the dataset is represented by its Flickr identifier . . . and the CC license
`under which it was published.”).
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`researchers who requested access to the DiF Dataset and filled out a questionnaire certifying that
`the request for access was for research purposes only. Merler Decl. ¶9.
`C. Plaintiffs’ Flickr Photos
`
`Plaintiffs assert that, while in Illinois, they uploaded photos of themselves and others to
`their personal Flickr accounts. Compl. ¶¶ 66, 75; Berger Decl. Ex. 1, Vance Dep. 132:4–6; id. Ex.
`2, Janecyk Dep. 99:21–100:13. When signing up for Flickr, Plaintiffs did not exercise the option
`to restrict who could access their photos, such as choosing the All Rights Reserved license.
`Vance Dep. 207:17–208:4; Janecyk Dep. 72:2–24. Instead, both chose to upload their photos
`under the Creative Commons license, thereby granting the public “license” to “distribute, remix,
`adapt, and build upon [their] work[.]”8 Vance Dep. 206:1–6; Janecyk Dep. 72:2–9.
`Vance testified that he uploaded at least 18,595 public photos to Flickr, at least 63 of these
`were part of the YFCC100M Dataset and subsequently included by IBM the DiF Dataset. Vance
`Dep. 179:22–23; 210:19–24. These 63 photos depict other people, not just Vance, and Vance did
`not always know whether these people were Illinois residents. Id. at 132:4–14; 154:5–16. Some of
`these 63 photos were taken by someone other than Vance, and some were taken outside Illinois.
`Id. at 70:2–71:22; 131:10–132:2.
`Janecyk uploaded 1,669 public photos to Flickr, 24 of which were part of the YFCC100M
`Dataset and subsequently became part of the IBM DiF Dataset. Janecyk Dep. 74:21–24; 95:22–
`96:1. Janecyk’s practice was to photograph strangers on the streets of Chicago. Id at 45:16–46:19.
`Aside from himself and individuals Janecyk knew only as “Popcorn Mike” and “Dave,” Janecyk
`did not know the names of any of the people in the 24 photos and did not know where they lived.
`Id. at 98:8–100:13; 167:11–168:15; 225:9–227:4; 228:19–21. At least 2 of the 24 photos were
`taken outside of Illinois. Id. at 97:18–20. Janecyk put a note on his account saying “PLEASE
`STEAL MY PHOTOS! ... I encourage you to steal any of my photography for personal or
`commercial use.” Berger Decl. Ex. 3, Janecyk Dep. Ex. 4. Although Janecyk testified that this
`
`8 Creative Commons, About The Licenses, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (last visited Dec. 9, 2021).
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`was “kind of a joke,” he acknowledged he would allow people to use his photos from Flickr for
`non-commercial purposes. Id. at 88:14–89:6.
`Neither Vance nor Janecyk alleges he had any contact or communication with Microsoft
`(in Illinois or elsewhere) concerning the IBM DiF Dataset or their photos on Flickr. Vance Dep.
`187:9–19; 199:13–16; Janecyk Dep. 95:3–6. Neither Plaintiff contacted IBM about removing their
`photos from the Dataset upon learning they were in it. Id.
`D. Microsoft Contractor Benjamin Skrainka’s Download of the IBM DiF Dataset
`
`In early 2019, Benjamin Skrainka was an independent contractor working for Neal
`Analytics LLC, a Washington-based consulting firm that supports companies with their data-
`driven initiatives. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 2. Through Neal Analytics, Skrainka worked as a vendor to
`Microsoft from September 7, 2018, through August 1, 2019. Id. In that role, Skrainka provided
`support for a project where he applied industry standard benchmarks to evaluate facial
`recognition technology. Id. at ¶ 3. He determined what the parameters and/or methodology
`should be for comparing different face recognition technologies available in the market. Id.;
`Kasap Decl. ¶ 4.
`As part of this research project, Skrainka sought datasets containing photos that might be
`suitable for his project. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 4. On or around February 1, 2019, Skrainka, while
`working in Washington, filled out an IBM questionnaire and requested a copy of the IBM DiF
`Dataset for use in the project. Id. at ¶¶ 4–5. After IBM granted Skrainka access to its Dataset
`through an online link, he downloaded the IBM DiF Dataset sometime in early February 2019.
`Id. at ¶ 5. He was in Washington when he downloaded the IBM DiF Dataset. Id.
`Skrainka obtained the IBM DiF Dataset to evaluate whether the photos linked in the
`dataset were suitable for use in his project. Id. at ¶ 6. He was not interested in any facial
`annotations or any other data that IBM may have included in its DiF Dataset, and he never
`reviewed any such data. Id.
`
`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
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 12 of 28
`
` The linked photos in the Dataset were not useful for Skrainka’s research purposes
`because they were unconstrained images, i.e., they were not conventional head-on photos used
`on a driver’s license or passport, and they were of generally low quality. Id. at ¶ 7. Once
`Skrainka determined the photos were not useful, he spent no further time with the IBM DiF
`Dataset. Id.
`He did not share the link or the IBM DiF Dataset with anyone. Id. at ¶ 5. Because he
`was focused on locating suitable photos, Skrainka ignored—and was not even aware of—any
`other data IBM may have included in the DiF; nor did he know the IBM DiF Dataset included
`data relating to some Illinois residents. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 10. Neither Skrainka nor Mustafa Kasap, the
`Microsoft Principal Program Manager supervising Skrainka’s work for Azure Media Services,
`are aware of anyone at Microsoft using or accessing the IBM DiF Dataset in any project or
`product at Microsoft, other than Skrainka’s brief evaluation of some of the photos in and
`rejection of the Dataset. Id. at ¶ 12; Kasap Decl. ¶ 7.
`Skrainka does not recall where he saved his copy of the IBM DiF Dataset. Skrainka
`Decl. ¶ 8. Despite a reasonable investigation, Microsoft too has been unable to confirm if and
`where Skrainka stored his downloaded copy of the IBM DiF Dataset. See Kasap Decl. ¶ 6;
`Bruncke Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. Skrainka used his own Apple laptop for his work—not any Microsoft-
`issued device for his work related to the IBM DiF Dataset. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 9. When this
`project ended in approximately August 2019, Skrainka decommissioned all the virtual machines9
`he used on the project and deleted from his own computer all resources he used during the
`project, including any datasets. Id. ¶¶ 8–9.
`Andy Bruncke, a Senior Program Manager at Microsoft who oversaw the vendor
`relationship with Neal Analytics, searched for any record of Skrainka’s downloaded copy of the
`IBM DiF Dataset in the locations where vendors and Microsoft employees stored data for the
`
`9 A virtual machine emulates the characteristics of a stand-alone physical computer. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 8. It shares
`physical resources, such as servers, with other virtual machines, and each virtual machine is isolated by software.
`Id. A virtual machine can easily be created, modified, or decommissioned without affecting the host computer. Id.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 84 Filed 12/10/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`relevant research project. Bruncke Decl. ¶ 6. Bruncke did not locate either a copy of the IBM
`DiF Dataset or a record of it ever having been stored in those locations. Id. at ¶ 6.
`E.
`Microsoft Student Intern Samira Samadi’s Download of the IBM DiF Dataset
`
`In February 2019, Samira Samadi, a graduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology
`in Atlanta, Georgia, worked as a student intern at Microsoft Research’s New York office.
`Samadi Decl. ¶ 2. Samadi downloaded the IBM DiF Dataset for a research project overseen by
`Jenn Wortman Vaughan, a Microsoft Senior Principal Researcher. Samadi Decl. ¶¶ 5-6;
`Vaughan Decl. ¶ 5. Samadi’s internship research project involved the study of how humans
`interact with, use, and make decisions with facial recognition systems. Samadi Decl. ¶ 3. She
`wanted to design a controlled human-subject experiment where participants were shown
`examples of images of faces deemed similar by an automatic facial recognition system and then
`were asked to judge the similarities of the faces in the images. Id. The goal of Samadi’s
`research was to measure how the perceived race, skin tone, and gender of the faces affect human
`judgment of face similarities. Id.
`After reading about the IBM DiF Dataset, Samadi thought it might be a useful resource,
`as the photos linked in the IBM DiF Dataset apparently had been selected to represent a diverse
`demographic cross-section. Id. at ¶ 5. From New York, and using her Georgia Institute of
`Technology email address, Samadi emailed IBM on February 25, 2019, requesting access to the
`IBM DiF Dataset on or about February 20, 2019. Id. IBM provided a questionnaire and after
`she filled that out, she was granted access to the IBM DiF Dataset via an online link. Samadi
`Decl. ¶ 6. Samadi downloaded the IBM DiF Dataset from IBM on or about February 25, 2019,
`in New York City. Id.
`After she did so, she briefly reviewed some of the photos linked in the Dataset and
`quickly de