Partner
While the Copyright Act of 1976 (hereinafter Copyright Act) does not explicitly recognize indirect liability, courts have held third parties liable for copyright infringement under two common law doctrines. They include:
In the Copyright Act, “Congress recognized secondary liability, [also referred to as indirect liability], in the grant of rights under copyright, providing authors and copyright owners with the ‘exclusive right to do and to authorize’ the enumerated rights.” (quoting 17 U.S.C. §106). Legislative history explains “the phrase ‘to authorize’ is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers.” (quoting H.R. Rep. 94-1476, at 61).
Contributory Infringement
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that contributory infringement occurs where “[o]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.” Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971). In general, the two elements of contributory infringement include:
(1) knowledge of the infringing activity; and
(2) material contribution to the activity.
“The adverb ‘knowingly’ is perhaps misleading in that it takes on an unusual meaning in this setting. It does not simply mean ‘awareness of infringement’ but instead implies some meaningful capacity to prevent or discourage infringement.”
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability finds its basis in the respondeat superior doctrine developed under agency law. The Legal Dictionary defines the respondeat superior doctrine as a mechanism that “provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.” This employment relationship is often referred to as an agency relationship in the law where the employer is considered the principal and the employee is considered an agent. Under this theory, the principal controls the actions of the agent while the agent is under the scope of employment and shall assume responsibility for the agent’s actions, including copyright infringement.
Therefore, vicarious liability is applied when one party, who is usually an employer, has control over another and likely results in a direct financial benefit from the infringing activities. Similar to contributory infringement, vicarious liability does not require the defendant to have any direct knowledge of the infringement.
Indirect copyright liability—encompassing contributory infringement, vicarious liability, and inducement—has become one of the most practically significant areas of copyright law in the internet era. Platform operators, software developers, and businesses that facilitate user-generated content face substantial indirect liability exposure. Understanding where the legal lines fall is essential for anyone operating an online platform or developing technology that can be used to copy or distribute copyrighted works.
The knowledge element in contributory infringement is more nuanced than it might appear. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), held that the sale of a product capable of “substantial non-infringing uses” cannot by itself give rise to contributory liability—even if the seller knows that the product will be used to infringe. The VCR could be used for lawful time-shifting, so selling VCRs did not make Sony a contributory infringer even though many purchasers used VCRs to copy copyrighted broadcasts.
However, Sony’s substantial non-infringing use doctrine does not immunize a defendant who has actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and materially contributes to them. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), applied this principle to hold Napster liable as a contributory infringer. Napster had actual knowledge of specific infringing files being shared on its network, and its centralized index system provided the material contribution that enabled users to find and download those files.
The material contribution element requires more than passive facilitation. A company that merely provides a neutral platform without taking affirmative steps to enable infringement may not satisfy this element. But a platform that provides a search function optimized for finding infringing content, promotes its service based on the availability of copyrighted material, or maintains technical architecture specifically designed to route infringing transactions crosses into material contribution territory.
Vicarious liability requires two elements: (1) the ability to supervise and control the direct infringer’s infringing conduct; and (2) a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Unlike contributory infringement, vicarious liability does not require knowledge. A defendant who profits from infringement and has the right and ability to stop it is liable even if it was unaware of specific infringing acts.
The financial benefit element is broadly construed. In Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996), the court held that a swap meet operator was vicariously liable for vendor infringement because the availability of infringing goods drew customers to the venue, which generated revenue for the operator through admission fees and booth rentals. The financial benefit did not need to be directly tied to each infringing transaction.
For online platforms, the direct financial benefit analysis typically focuses on whether the availability of infringing content attracts users and thereby drives advertising revenue, subscription fees, or other monetization. A streaming platform that benefits from users who subscribe because pirated content is available—even if the platform does not directly charge for access to that content—may satisfy the financial benefit element.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), added a third theory of indirect liability to the contributory and vicarious framework: inducement. A defendant induces copyright infringement when it distributes a device or service with the object of promoting its use to infringe, as shown by clear expression or affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
Grokster had marketed its peer-to-peer software as the successor to Napster, sent messages to former Napster users inviting them to switch, and derived revenue from advertising displayed to users who were largely using the service to infringe. The Court held that this evidence of active promotion of infringement made Grokster liable for the infringement it had induced, regardless of whether the software itself had substantial non-infringing uses under Sony.
The inducement doctrine is particularly relevant to any company that markets its platform or service by referencing the availability of copyrighted content, or that structures its service architecture in ways that make infringement easier or more attractive. Marketing materials, internal communications, and product design decisions can all become evidence of inducement intent in litigation.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provisions, 17 U.S.C. §512, offer a critical defense against indirect copyright liability for qualifying online service providers. To qualify for the §512(c) safe harbor for user-uploaded content, a platform must:
The safe harbor does not apply to induced infringement under Grokster—a platform that actively promotes infringement cannot hide behind §512. And the “right and ability to control” limitation in the safe harbor echoes the vicarious liability analysis: a platform that exerts substantial influence over user activity may lose safe harbor protection on the financial benefit prong.
Businesses that operate platforms hosting user-generated content should take the following steps to manage indirect liability risk:
If you have questions about copyright indirect liability, platform compliance, or responding to copyright claims, contact Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys at 855-473-8474.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem