Copyright Indirect Liability featured image

Copyright Indirect Liability

by John DiGiacomo

Partner

Copyright Infringement

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:

  • contributory Infringement; and
  • vicarious Liability.

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.” [link]

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 requires two elements:

(1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and

(2) a direct financial benefit from that activity.

For example, a stadium operator may hire bands or performers who could violate copyright law if they perform a copyrighted work without the owner’s permission. It would be much easier and potentially more profitable for a copyright owner who has been infringed by stadium performers to sue the stadium rather than each individual infringer. Due to this threat of vicarious liability, concert halls, stadiums, radio stations, television stations, and similar entities found an inexpensive way to acquire performance rights to avoid potential infringement. They purchase licenses from performing rights societies, such as Broadcast Music International (BMI) [link]:[ http://www.bmi.com ] and the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) [link]: [http://www.ascap.com], which gives the stadium like entities the permission to lawfully perform the copyrighted works for which they received permission under its licensing agreement.

For more information about indirect liability under copyright law, contact Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Copyright

The holders of copyrights for newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications are involved in numerous legal battles with owners of AI modules over alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff copyright owners claim that the AI large language modules have been trained on huge quantities of copyrighted materials without permission and — most importantly — without payment. […]

Read more about Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Corporate

The owners of most small, closely-held businesses negotiate and sign some form of an “Owner’s Agreement.” An important part of such Agreements is the “Buy-Sell” provisions. These are often some of the most difficult to negotiate. The gist of the buy-sell part of the Owners’ Agreement is to establish the rules for what happens if […]

Read more about How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Internet Law

Social media content moderation by technology platforms was one of the “hot” legal topics in 2023-2024. Three States — California, Texas, and Florida — passed different statutes to either require more content moderation (California) or to limit such moderation (Texas and Florida). All the statutes, in one way or another, demanded more transparency and information […]

Read more about Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Put Revision Legal on your side