…at least in the Northern District of Texas. There, in a recent opinion (November 22, 2017), the court held that framing (aka inline linking or hotlinking) a work is copyright infringement[1].
This is a big deal for creatives and legal geeks like me.
See, particularly nefarious infringers have managed to get away with infringing by inline linking to a work and then claiming that they didn’t copy the work, so no infringement. Their defense is that they just provided the work on their site live/embedded/hotlinked/whatever, but the work was still hosted on the original (owner’s) site so, boom, no infringement.
This has always ticked me off as it sure seems like a clear violation of the exclusive right to display a work, provided for in copyright law[2]. Unfortunately, the courts haven’t been on our side about it. Scholars, yes (mostly), but the courts, not so much.
The big case defendants usually rely on was from here in the 9th Circuit back in 2007: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc[3]. There, the court noted that someone has to make and possess a copy for an infringement to occur. For a website, that means a copy of the file must be on the defendant’s server, not still on the plaintiff’s but displayed on the defendant’s. Since then, however, courts have begun to take issue with that idea.
‘Bout time, I say.
In this new opinion, the court notes a copyright owner’s exclusive right to display a work and that “[t]he text of the Copyright Act does not make actual possession of a copy of a work a prerequisite for infringement. To display a work, someone need only show a copy of the work; a person need not actually possess a copy to display a work.[4]” It distinguished this case from Perfect 10 on the facts, but also said that the court in Perfect 10, on this point, got it wrong.
Huzzah.
While this case doesn’t mean that every case with framing/inline linking will now be a winner for the copyright owner, it does open the door a little more.
____________
[1] The Leader’s Institute, LLC, et al. v Jackson, et al., Case 3:14-cv-03572-B (TXND 11/22/17) Doc. 195 at 21.
[2] 17 USC §106(5).
[3] 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)
[4] The Leader’s Institute, Doc. 195 at 23, citing Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, No. 10-C-6517, 2011 WL 3876910, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2011).