Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Warren Publishing Company v. Spurlock

    CIVIL ACTION No. 08-3399 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Recent decisions have rejected its holding." Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The second case, TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 262 F. Supp. 2d 185, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), concluded that "punitive damages claims for copyright infringement found to be willful are not precluded as a matter of law," in light of a softening stance under Second Circuit law.

  2. Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp.

    566 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 41 times
    Granting defendants summary judgment on a damages claim premised on defendants' profits, concluding that plaintiff failed to show a causal link between the defendants' $766 million in profits and their alleged infringing use of the plaintiff's calculator program on its website

    Moreover, if a party elects to pursue actual, as opposed to statutory damages, he foregoes the ability to receive an enhancement based on the willfulness of the alleged infringement, which is only available in connection with statutory damages. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (c); see also Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 462-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Finally, irrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, "punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976."

  3. YellowCake, Inc. v. Dashgo, Inc.

    1:21-CV-0803 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2022)

    In fact, these cases are recognized as outliers by courts and treatises alike. E.g. Falkner v. GM, LLC, 393 F.Supp.3d 927, 939 (C.D. Cal. 2018); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 463-64 (S.D. N.Y. 2008); 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.02[C][2]. The clear weight of authority is that punitive damages are unavailable in copyright infringement cases.

  4. Kinman v. Zachary Burnop & 3B Filmz, Inc.

    NO. 3:18-cv-00809 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    Common law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act. Curcio Webb L.L.C. v. Nat'l Benefit Programs Agency, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1198 (S.D. Ohio 2005); Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D. N.Y. 2008). D. Attorney's Fees and Costs

  5. Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church

    Case No. 4:11-CV-03095 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for vicarious infringement because allegations that pastor and his wife were directors of church, without more, were insufficient to suggest that they personally supervised the infringing conduct

    1976."); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F.Supp.2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I]rrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, 'punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'" (quoting Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983))); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act.")). See also Christopher Phelps & Associates, LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 545 (4th Cir. 2007); Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP, 329 F.3d 923, 931 (7th Cir. 2003); On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The district court correctly held that Davis is not entitled to punitive damages under the Copyright Act.

  6. Banxcorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

    723 F. Supp. 2d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting motion to dismiss unjust enrichment claim as preempted where it was premised on defendant's alleged breach of license agreement

    See Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd. v. Youtube, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 159, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("There is no circumstance in which punitive damages are available under the Copyright Act of 1976."); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I]rrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, 'punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'" (quoting Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983)); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act.").

  7. LTVN HOLDINGS, LLC v. NADER ANTHONY ODEH

    Civil Action No. CCB-09-789 (D. Md. Jun. 25, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    See Christopher Phelps Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 545 (4th Cir. 2007). Although the plaintiffs cite Blanch v. Koons, 329 F. Supp. 2d 568, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) and TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 262 F. Supp. 2d 185, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) for the proposition that punitive damages are permitted when statutory damages cannot be pursued, these cases remain outliers and Judge Stanton, who decided Blanch, has since declared Blanch "no longer good law." See Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); see also 4-14 Nimmer on Contracts § 14-02[C][2] (referring to TVT Records as a "rogue decision [that] should not be followed"). The defendants also dispute the plaintiffs' claim for compensatory damages of $250,000.

  8. The Football Ass'n Premier League v. Youtube, Inc.

    633 F. Supp. 2d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the plaintiff's claim that 17 U.S.C. § 412 excuses foreign works from the registration requirement in order to obtain statutory damages; there is no exception for foreign works in the statute, Congress did not intend an exception, requiring foreign works to meet this requirement would not violate international copyright and intellectual property treaties to which the United States is bound, and “[e]ven if Section 412 were in conflict with the Berne Convention, Section 412 would be binding ... [b]ecause the Berne Convention has no effect on U.S. law unless Congress so provides ...”

    However, plaintiffs cite no binding authority requiring the U.S. to furnish the remedy of punitive damages in suits under the Copyright Act, nor one holding that the remedies ordinarily available in infringement cases of an injunction and actual damages plus any applicable profits (see H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 158) do not suffice to deter infringement. There is no circumstance in which punitive damages are available under the Copyright Act of 1976. "Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act."Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), relying primarily on Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983) ("If the action proceeds to a new trial, we note that punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976."); accord Faulkner v. Nat'l Geographic Soc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 609, 612-13, 613 n. 7, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("the Copyright Act limits recovery in this case to `actual damages' and does not permit recovery of punitive damages"); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Finally, irrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, "`punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'"); 4 NIMMEP ON COPYRIGHT § 14.02[C][2], at 14-34 ("The cases are clear that exemplary or punitive damages should not be awarded in a statutory copyright infringement action.").