Court Says DMCA Safe Harbors Disappear Once Infringing Images Are Printed On Physical Items

Copyright

from the little-known-512(f)-clause-about-'word-became-flesh' dept

A really weird decision with some implications for DMCA safe harbors has come out of a US district court in California. The case revolves around paintings and pictures licensed by Greg Young Publishing International [GYPI], several of which appeared on Zazzle’s website and, consequently, were turned into physical reproductions (mugs, t-shirts, etc.) via Zazzle’s automated print-on-demand process.

After some discussion about which prints GYPI actually controls for infringement claim purposes, the court gets down to addressing the supposed infringement. Discussing the safe harbor provisions, the court finds Zazzle qualifies for these protections. Sort of. The court says Zazzle qualifies as a provider of online services and, thanks to GYPI never sending any DMCA notices, it had no knowledge of the infringement.

That’s where the court’s reasoning starts swimming in non-concentric circles. As Eric Goldman points out, the court’s legal math doesn’t add up when it decides there’s something Zazzle could have done to prevent the alleged infringement. Goldman comments on the court’s strange determination:

“Zazzle had the right and ability to control the types of products it produced,” in contrast to how eBay/Amazon allow vendors to select which products to sell. This is a non-sequitur because the alleged infringements are attributable to the images selected and uploaded by Zazzle’s users. It’s irrelevant to the alleged infringement what cut of T-shirt is selected by Zazzle and who manufactures the raw materials.

At this point, Zazzle should still be protected from the infringement committed by a user. But that’s not how the court sees it. The court sees an infringing uploaded image (where Zazzle is still protected) being turned into a physical product and decides this is the point where Zazzle loses its safe harbor. From the decision [PDF]:

GYPI argues that Zazzle had “the right and ability to control” the sale of infringing products because “it is actively involved in selecting the products that are sold, pricing those products, selling the products, manufacturing the products, inspecting the products, and finally packaging and delivering the products.” Doc. 50-1 at 27. Zazzle does not dispute that it engages in these activities. The Court concludes that Zazzle had the right and ability to control the types of products it produced. Unlike eBay or Amazon, Zazzle’s role is not limited to facilitating the sale of products owned and marketed by third parties. Zazzle creates the products. If Zazzle lacks the right and ability to control the sale of products it creates, it is hard to imagine any defendant that would have such a right.

Without the uploads, there would be no infringement. Zazzle may benefit indirectly from the sale of products with infringing images, but the court still feels Zazzle should be held accountable even if it has almost no direct input in the physical product creation other than forwarding the order to the print-on-demand contractor. As Goldman pointed out, the reasoning doesn’t add up. But that’s OK, says the court, Zazzle’s reasoning doesn’t add up either.

Zazzle argues that it lacked the ability to control the sale of infringing products because, in practice, “the production process was effectively automatic . . . after a product was ordered and approved by Zazzle’s CMT [content management team].” Doc. 69 at 25. That is a non sequitur. It doesn’t matter if Zazzle lacked the ability to control its production process after CMT approved the product; presumably CMT had the authority to reject products that were infringing. More to the point, even if the entire process were automatic, that would suggest at most that Zazzle had chosen not to exercise its right and ability to reject infringing products, not that it lacked the right or ability to do so. GYPI is entitled to summary judgment that Zazzle is not protected under § 512(c) to the extent it manufactured and sold physical products bearing infringing images.

There is no further attempt made to explain the court’s rationale. For some reason, it can’t seem to get past the production of physical products, even though Zazzle claims it has no more control over that than it does over uploaded content. In effect, the court sets up a double standard: physical vs. digital. Zazzle is protected if users upload infringing images but not if customers decide they want a copy of this image on a t-shirt or poster.

The CMT mentioned above sounds like little more than a perfunctory infringement check similar to the one that accompanies each image upload. And if the court decides to untwist Zazzle’s “non sequitur” and hold it up for examination, Zazzle shouldn’t be able to avail itself of DMCA safe harbors at the point of image upload either. The decision is internally inconsistent. Given the number of print-on-demand companies out there, this bizarre internal split on physical/digital infringement could cause problems down the road.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, print on demand, printing
Companies: zazzle