City of Inglewood Pays $100K in Copyright Case

In City of Inglewood v Joseph Teixeira, the Court found that Teixeira’s use of City Council recordings in his personal critical commentary videos did not violate any kind of copyright laws. The Court’s decision to grant Teixeira’s motion to dismiss was not especially surprising. California state law creates a strong presumption supporting public access to public material. Under this law California public entities, such as the City of Inglewood, cannot assert copyright on works they produce, including their City Council meeting videos.

The City of Inglewood presented three arguments in opposition to this finding. First, they argued the Supremacy Clause, but the Court held that every authority that has addressed the issue has found that a State can choose whether or not it will hold and assert copyright over its works and those of its subdivisions, thus, the Supremacy Clause does not apply. Second, registration of the videos as copyrighted material was deemed irrelevant because registration is not conclusive of a copyright ability and even if it were relevant, other cases that were cited by the City are not analogous to this case. These cases reference either books or software programs produced by City officials. Software programs specifically, are protected under California law, City Council recordings however, are not. Finally, the City asserts thatCounty of Santa Clara v Superior Court, a California court of appeals decision, is non-precedential. However, the district court is “compelled to follow [County of Santa Clara], absent convincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would rule otherwise.” The City was unable to provide such evidence.

The above findings were sufficient for the Court to grant Teixeira’s Motion to Dismiss. However, should the Court’s decision be appealed, the Court chose to rule on the fair use doctrine, Teixeira’s second major argument, to a provide a full ruling. The fair use doctrine is a common law doctrine that was codified into §107 of the Copyright Act. In reviewing Teixeira’s videos the Court concluded that the videos were protected by the fair use doctrine because Teixeira uses brief portions of larger works (often seconds or several minutes at most of several hour long proceedings) and then progresses to comment on and criticize the political activities of City Council and its members. The Court then went on to look at each factor of the fair use doctrine and determined that Teixeira’s use of the videos fell squarely within the confines of said doctrine.

The case took a surprising turn however when the Court chose to award attorney fees to Teixeira. The Copyright Act provides that the prevailing party of a claim is warranted these fees if the opposing party’s claim was sufficiently weak. The result in this case was a judgment for $110,000 to be paid by the City of Inglewood, in addition to court costs and their own legal fees. In a nation where “loser pays” is incredibly rare, this decision came as a big surprise.

However, when the Court provided its explanation of the award, it seemed less surprising. The claim made by the City of Inglewood was deemed ‘objectively unreasonable’ and ‘frivolous.’ Teixeira won the case by a landslide and the Court hoped to deter future cases similar to this one. The Court even went as far as to comment that the City of Inglewood and their counsel should have taken more care and completed their due diligence before filing this unnecessary claim. While the City of Inglewood claims that the award will not act as a deterrent, only time will tell if other cities feel the same way.

City of Inglewood v Teixeira, Slip Copy 2015 WL 5025839, at *3 (2015).

Id. at *4.

Id.

Id. at *5.

170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2009).

City of Inglewood, at *5.

Id. at *6.

Id.

[9] Washington Post, Inglewood taxpayers must pay over $110,000 for “objectively unreasonable” copyright lawsuit against critic,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/12/inglewood-taxpayers-must-pay-over-110000-for-failed-copyright-lawsuit-against-critic/ (posted October 12, 2015).

The Fair Use Doctrine: What the Four Factors Actually Require

The court’s fair use analysis in City of Inglewood v. Teixeira provides a textbook application of the fair use doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Understanding that analysis is useful for anyone seeking to use publicly created content for commentary, criticism, or reporting purposes — or for any government entity considering whether to assert copyright in its own public records.

The four fair use factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the original work. The Supreme Court has made clear, most recently in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), that these factors must be considered holistically and that no single factor is dispositive.

In Teixeira’s case, the court found that all four factors favored fair use. The purpose was transformative — Teixeira took raw meeting footage and used it as the basis for political commentary and criticism, which is among the most protected forms of expression under the First Amendment. The nature of the work (government meeting recordings documenting official conduct) weighed in favor of fair use. The amount used was minimal in relation to the whole — brief segments from hours of proceedings. And the effect on the market was negligible because the City made the recordings publicly available at no charge.

Government Works and the Copyright Act’s Section 105

The City of Inglewood’s copyright claim faced a foundational obstacle beyond fair use: 17 U.S.C. § 105 provides that “copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.” This provision reflects the principle that federal government works, created at public expense, should be freely available to the public. However, Section 105 applies only to works of the federal government — it does not apply to state and local government works.

This means that, under federal copyright law, state and local governments can in principle assert copyright in works they create. But as the Teixeira court recognized, state law can limit that right. California Government Code § 6254.9 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2009), reflect California’s policy that government-created works — particularly those documenting official public conduct — should not be subject to copyright claims by the government itself.

The policy rationale is straightforward: if governments could assert copyright in their own public records, officials’ meetings, and official acts, they could use copyright law as a tool to suppress criticism and accountability journalism. The First Amendment interests in access to information about government conduct are served by a robust rule against government copyright claims in official proceedings.

Attorney’s Fees Under the Copyright Act

The $110,000 attorney’s fees award in the Teixeira case deserves careful attention. Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, the prevailing party in a copyright action may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees at the court’s discretion. The standard for awarding fees to the defendant (as opposed to the plaintiff) requires that the plaintiff’s claim was objectively unreasonable, frivolous, or brought in bad faith. The Supreme Court addressed this standard in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016), holding that courts should give substantial weight to objective unreasonableness — meaning a plaintiff who pursues legally meritless claims faces a meaningful risk of paying the defendant’s fees.

The Teixeira court found the City’s claims objectively unreasonable on multiple grounds: the state law barrier to government copyright claims was clear; the fair use defense was obvious given the commentary and criticism nature of Teixeira’s videos; and the City had failed to conduct adequate due diligence before filing suit. The court explicitly noted that the fee award was intended to deter similar claims by other government entities.

For institutional copyright plaintiffs — whether government entities or private companies — the Teixeira decision reinforces the importance of pre-litigation fair use analysis. Filing copyright claims without seriously analyzing the defendant’s fair use defense creates real exposure to fee awards. For defendants who face objectively meritless copyright claims, asserting a fee claim is an important litigation strategy that can shift the cost-benefit calculus for the plaintiff.

Lessons for Public Officials and Political Commentators

The Teixeira decision — and the numerous similar cases that have followed it — establishes several practical lessons for both government bodies and citizens who engage in political commentary:

• Recording public meetings is protected activity. Members of the public generally have a First Amendment right to record public meetings of government bodies, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Many states have specific statutes protecting this right. Attempting to use copyright law to suppress recordings of public meetings is legally untenable in California and in most other jurisdictions.
• Commentary and criticism are core fair uses. Using clips from public meetings, legislative sessions, or official proceedings to support commentary, criticism, or parody is among the most clearly protected fair uses. Courts apply fair use generously in this context because of the strong First Amendment interest in political speech.
• Government bodies should not use copyright as a censorship tool. Beyond the legal risk illustrated by the Teixeira fee award, government bodies that assert copyright claims against critics face reputational damage that far exceeds any litigation benefit. The City of Inglewood paid $110,000 in fees for the privilege of suppressing public criticism — and generated vastly more negative publicity in the process.

Talk to an Attorney

Copyright law applies in unexpected places, and its interaction with government accountability, political speech, and public records creates a complex legal landscape. Whether you are a journalist, blogger, or political commentator seeking to use publicly available materials in your work, or a government entity facing questions about the copyright status of your official records, Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys can provide clear guidance. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.