Court Realizes It Totally Screwed Up An Injunction Against Zazzle For Copyright Infringement

from the oops dept

Last year we wrote about a bizarre and troubling DMCA case involving the print-on-demand company Zazzle, in which the judge in the district court bizarrely and wrongly claimed that Zazzle lost its DMCA safe harbors because the allegedly infringing works were printed on a t-shirt, rather than remaining digitally (even though it was the end user using the infringing work, and Zazzle’s system just processed it automatically). To add insult to injury, in November, the judge then issued a permanent injunction against Zazzle for this infringement.

However, it appears that no one is more troubled about this permanent injunction issued by Judge Stephen Wilson… than Judge Stephen Wilson.

In early February, Wilson released a new order reversing his earlier order and chastising himself for getting things wrong.

The Court finds that there is a “manifest showing” of the Court’s “failure to consider
material facts presented to the Court” because the Court did not provide any justification for the
permanent injunction.

Yes, that’s the judge chastising himself for not providing the necessary justification for an injunction after finding Zazzle to not have safe harbors (some of the background here involves a question about which rules — federal or local — the court should be using to reconsider the earlier ruling, which isn’t that interesting). Unfortunately, Wilson doesn’t go back and revisit the DMCA safe harbors question — this new ruling just focuses on why he was wrong to issue a permanent injunction after finding that the DMCA safe harbors didn’t apply.

For that, the court notes (correctly, this time!) that under the Supreme Court’s important MercExchange standard, courts should be careful about issuing injunctions for infringement, and that the plaintiffs need to show irreparable harm and that other remedies aren’t more appropriate (and that an injunction won’t cause greater harm to the public). Here, the plaintiff failed to do all of those — and somehow the court missed it.

In addition, the court does note that it never even considered the question about whether the artwork that is displayed on Zazzle’s website, but not printed on t-shirts, still gives Zazzle safe harbor protections — and the injunction would have applied to those works too, even though they might have been protected under the DMCA:

Plaintiff’s proposed permanent injunction was ambiguous and went beyond the issues at
trial, facts which the Court did not consider when it granted the initial motion for a permanent
injunction. Before trial, the Court never decided whether Zazzle had a viable DMCA defense as
to images only displayed on Zazzle’s website and never physically manufactured. Dkt. 81.
Plaintiff withdrew its claims as to such “display-only” artworks prior to trial, so the issue was not
tried. Dkt. 110 at 2:11-25. As such, it is unclear whether the injunction applies to both the
manufacture and distribution of physical goods, or also to display of images on the Zazzle
website. It is also unclear if Zazzle must take “reasonable” steps to address the display of images
on its website as well as its manufacture of products. The Court did not consider these material
facts in determining the scope of the permanent injunction; upon reviewing these facts, the
proposed injunctions go beyond the issues at trial.

It’s good that the court has realized its own mistakes and fixed them — though it would be nice if it went further to the point of recognizing the problems of saying that by printing an image on a physical good the DMCA protections disappear.

But, really, reading this new ruling, you almost (almost) feel bad for Judge Wilson as he complains about Judge Wilson’s failings in this case:

The Court recognizes that it failed to consider material facts in granting the permanent
injunction in October 2017. The Court also recognizes that it provided no rationale for the
permanent injunction, manifestly showing the failure to consider such facts. Upon considering
those facts, the Court finds no basis for a permanent injunction in this matter.

Don’t be too hard on yourself, Judge. Admitting your mistakes is the first step.



Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: zazzle

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Realizes It Totally Screwed Up An Injunction Against Zazzle For Copyright Infringement”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Anonymoussays:

Well, bottom line me, Legal Expert! You don't even state that the injunction is VACATED! Had to read the stinkin' order myself! -- SO what's next?

Does the decision not stand? Is Zazzle completely off the hook, or is this “remediable” error requiring more input?

Admitting that you left out key parts and portents is first step to YOUR correcting the record!

Valkorsays:

Re: Re: Well, bottom line me, Legal Expert! You don't even state that the injunction is VACATED! Had to read the stinkin' order myself! -- SO what's next?

First, learn what a subject line is for.

Second, from the post:
” Wilson released a new order reversing his earlier order ” , which is talking about the vacated injunction.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/1600/

Just for fun, here’s a link to not one, but four documents related to the case. (Verdict, request for attorney fees, injunction, and damages reduction)

Techdirt isn’t a complete legal history of everything, so just calm down. If you didn’t come out of the gate like a double barreled lunatic, we could start a constructive conversation about the events (including a jury trial) between the motion for summary judgement in the first Techdirt aticle and this one. We could ponder how in the world Zazzle ended up with a damages judgement of $350,000 when GYPI acknowledged in court that Zazzle complied readily with every takedown request provided. We could even discuss the philosophical difference between an automatically displayed pixel, an automatically printed pixel, and an automatically 3D printed squirt of plastic in a “Digital Millennium”
Instead, you sound like a tool that’s genuinely upset that he had to read and even think a little.

Good day, sir.

Anonymoussays:

"By printing an image on a physical good the DMCA protections disappear." -- I think that's still a true statement. Nothing you raised even disputes it.

From my second close reading, all those who think I don’t even read a first time.

Now, if you’ll just go back as the judge did and show your REASONING on the key finding, not just leap to assert that DMCA covers even physical goods, it’d be handy. ‘Cause you state that the key finding is still in place, and so not much can change.

Anonymoussays:

“Last year we wrote about a bizarre and troubling DMCA case involving the print-on-demand company Zazzle, in which the judge in the district court bizarrely and wrongly claimed that Zazzle lost its DMCA safe harbors because the allegedly infringing works were printed on a t-shirt, rather than remaining digitally (even though it was the end user using the infringing work, and Zazzle’s system just processed it automatically).”

I really don’t see why that’s wrong. I can see a good argument for changing the law, but right now the DMCA applies to “transitory digital network communications”, “system caching”, “information residing on systems or networks at direction of users”, and “information location tools”. It does not apply to physical objects like t-shirts. If there’s a double standard, it’s baked into the law.

Anonymoussays:

‘Don’t be too hard on yourself, Judge. Admitting your mistakes is the first step’

perhaps instead of thinking, as 99.9% of judges do, that whatever they think/say is right that knowing and complying with the law is a better way to go? what about the damage that’s been done to Zazzle? will that be undone by this judges incompetence? and what about amending the ‘Safe Harbor’ part? totally ignored, still!!

Snap Shotsays:

My experience with Zazzle

For years i had posted personal photos and paintings on Zazzle. One was a photo of pelicans flying over a beach in San Diego. As part of the description I had added i commented that the photo was take with a 35mm compact Leica camera.

After TEN YEARS, I received an email from Zazzle stating they had removed the photo because of violation of Terms Of Service agreement.

Puzzled, I responded with a query as to the specifics as to the so-called violation. The response was it related to a complaint from a (named) person working at Leica complaining that I had used the word Leica in describing my phtoto without their permission.

This was on so many levels that in disgust I removed all my images from their site, and also vowed I would never buy another Leica,product.

I cannot abide idiotic nonsense dressed up in legal trappings.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow