Vimeo Prevails in Prolonged Copyright Battle Against Record Labels

Vimeo wins legal battle

Video sharing platform Vimeo has emerged victorious in the latest round of a 16-year legal conflict with divisions of Universal Music Group.

According to reported Reuters, on Monday (Jan. 13), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in Vimeo’s favor, dismissing copyright infringement claims presented by major record labels including Universal Music Group, Capitol Records, and several AMY subsidiaries.

Lawsuit details

The lawsuit, initiated in 2009, pertained to the Vimeo Lip Dub Stars channel, where users uploaded videos featuring copyrighted music. The record labels contended that Vimeo neglected clear indicators of copyright infringement when its employees encountered recognizable recordings on the platform.

Additional labels listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Caroline Records, Virgin Records America, and Stone Diamond Music Corporation.

The appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling affirming that Vimeo was protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor Clauses (DMCA). These provisions, enacted during the Clinton administration, generally shield Internet service providers and intermediaries from liability for user-posted content, provided they respond to takedown notices.

“The district court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that Vimeo had actual or reasonable knowledge of the infringement or the right and ability to control the infringing activity and therefore lost its right to safe harbor.”

Judge Pierre N. Leval, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

“The district court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that Vimeo had actual or reasonable knowledge of the infringement or the right and ability to control infringing activity and therefore lost its right to safe harbor,” the ruling, which can be read in full, stated. Here.

The court determined that “Vimeo was entitled to the DMCA safe harbor because: although there was evidence that Vimeo employees interacted with videos containing infringing content, there was not sufficient evidence to prove that it was obvious to those employees that the content of the video was neither authorized by the copyright holder nor lawfully used.”

The labels also failed to demonstrate that “Vimeo had sufficient ‘right and ability to control’ within the meaning of the law to lose its safe harbor,” the ruling indicated, with U.S. District Judges Pierre N. Leval, Barrington D. Parker, and Sarah Al Merriam supporting the opinion.

In his remarks, Leval underscored that even if unauthorized use of music might appear likely to the average person, “it would not make it obvious that a particular video does not have permission to use the music.”

The ruling also considered the labels’ argument that Vimeo exerted substantial control over user content through its ability to promote or demote posts. The court dismissed this assertion, stating that Vimeo’s content moderation impacted only a minimal percentage of user uploads.

“For example, in 2012, 43,000 new videos were uploaded daily on Vimeo, resulting in an annualized increase of over 15 million new videos. During that year, Vimeo had only 74 employees. Without taking into account the minimal employee intervention in selecting videos for the Seal of Approval, the number of videos that 74 employees could review and highlight was just a small fraction of those uploaded,” the ruling explained.

“Highlighting selected videos by granting them a seal of approval or featuring them on the Staff Picks channel (or, conversely, demoting them) did not restrict users’ freedom to upload any videos they desired,” the judges added.

Furthermore, the court ruled that denying Vimeo DMCA protection would impose “unacceptable costs” on the company.

Vimeo welcomed the ruling with a spokesperson stating to Reuters that the decision “ensures that Vimeo can continue to empower innovation and artistic expression while respecting intellectual property rights.”

The ruling also clarified that DMCA protections apply to recordings made both prior to and following 1972, echoing a previous Second Circuit ruling that negated a state court decision in a case involving Grooveshark and Universal Music Group.

Grooveshark, once notorious for copyright infringement, ceased operations in 2015 after losing a lawsuit against Universal Music.