IO Group, Inc. et al v. GLBT, Ltd. et al

Filing 165

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN COMPTON AND DAVID GRAHAM COMPTON; VACATING MARCH 30, 2012 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 26, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

IO GROUP, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN
COMPTON AND DAVID GRAHAM
COMPTON; VACATING MARCH 30, 2012
HEARING

v.

13
14

No. C-10-1282 MMC

GLBT, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
Before the Court is the “Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants John

17
18

Compton and David Graham Compton,” filed February 3, 2012 by plaintiffs IO Group, Inc.,

19

Channel One Releasing, Inc., and Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. Defendants John

20

Compton and David Graham Compton (collectively, “the Comptons”) have not filed a

21

response thereto. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion,

22

the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled

23

for March 30, 2012, and hereby rules as follows.

24

In their motion, plaintiffs seek summary judgment in their favor on the issues of the

25

Comptons’ liability for direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and

26

contributory copyright infringement.1

27

//

28
1

Plaintiffs have not moved with respect to the issue of damages.

1
2

A. Direct Copyright Infringement
“To prove a claim of direct infringement, a plaintiff must show that he owns the

3

copyright and that the defendant himself violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive

4

rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004),

5

A copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act include the right to display the

6

copyrighted work publicly. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(5).

7

By order filed October 19, 2011, Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu found plaintiffs were

8

entitled to the following rebuttable factual presumptions: (1) “third parties posted material

9

on Defendants’ websites that infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights”; (2) “Plaintiffs submitted

10

takedown notices to Defendants regarding the infringing material”; and (3) “Defendants did

11

not take steps to remove Plaintiffs’ infringing material from their websites.” (See Order,

12

filed October 19, 2011, at 12:25 - 13:2.)2 In support of the instant motion, plaintiffs rely on

13

said rebuttable factual presumptions. No evidence has been offered to rebut said

14

presumptions, and, consequently, the Court finds it is undisputed that the Comptons have

15

directly infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights by publicly displaying plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on

16

the Comptons’ websites.

17

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of the

18

Comptons’ liability for direct copyright infringement, the motion will be granted.

19

B. Vicarious Copyright Infringement

20

“A defendant is vicariously liable for copyright infringement if he enjoys a direct

21

financial benefit from another’s infringing activity and has the right and ability to supervise

22

the infringing activity.” See Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076 (internal quotation, citation, and

23

emphasis omitted).

24

In his deposition, David Compton testified that the websites earn revenue by

25
26
27
28

2

The reference to “Defendants” in Magistrate Judge Ryu’s order includes the
Comptons, as well as defendants who are not the subject of the instant motion for
summary judgment (see id. at 2:2-7), and “Defendants’ websites” is a reference to the three
websites identified in plaintiffs’ complaint (see id. at 2:5-7), specifically, gayforit.com,
itsallgay.com, jerkyourtube.com (see Compl. ¶ 28).
2

1

charging users a flat fee, ranging from $17.99 to $29.99, to view the videos that are initially

2

posted thereon by third parties. (See Sperlein Decl., filed August 11, 2011, Ex. B at 11-12.)

3

David Compton also testified that he was able to remove content from videos posted by

4

third parties, and, on some occasions, did so. (See id. Ex. B at 56.) Additionally, as

5

discussed above, the Comptons have failed to rebut the factual presumption that plaintiffs

6

advised the Comptons of the infringing activity by third parties and that the Comptons

7

thereafter did not remove the infringing material from the websites. In light of the above-

8

referenced undisputed facts, the Court finds the Comptons are vicariously liable for the

9

infringing activity of the third parties who posted infringing videos on the websites, in that

10

the Comptons earned revenue by charging users of their websites to view the infringing

11

videos and they declined to remove the infringing material despite their right and ability to

12

do so.

13

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of the

14

Comptons’ liability for vicarious copyright infringement, the motion will be granted.

15

C. Contributory Copyright Infringement

16

“One who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially

17

contributes to the infringing conduct of another may be liable as a contributory copyright

18

infringer.” Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076 (internal quotation, citation, alteration and emphasis

19

omitted). A defendant who, knowing copyrighted material has been posted on its website,

20

allows the infringing material to remain on its website and provides its users access to the

21

copyrighted material is liable for contributory infringement. See id. at 1077-78.

22

As stated above, the Comptons have failed to rebut the factual presumptions that

23

plaintiffs advised the Comptons of third parties’ infringing activities, specifically, that third

24

parties had posted infringing material on the Comptons’ websites, and that the Comptons

25

thereafter did not remove the infringing material. Further, it is undisputed that the

26

Comptons allowed users of its websites to view the material posted thereon. In light of

27

such undisputed evidence, the Court finds the Comptons are liable for contributory

28

infringement.
3

1
2

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of the
Comptons’ liability for contributory copyright infringement, the motion will be granted.
CONCLUSION

3
4

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is hereby

5

GRANTED, and plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor and against the

6

Comptons on the following issues: (1) the Comptons are liable for direct copyright

7

infringement; (2) the Comptons are liable for vicarious copyright infringement; and (3) the

8

Comptons are liable for contributory copyright infringement.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: March 26, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4