David Newhoff, Author at The Illusion of More

CA Supreme Court in Hassell Reveals Sec. 230 is a Catch-22

First, a refresher. The broad immunity provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was adopted in 1996 as an incentive to internet service providers to take affirmative steps to remove material. Congress wanted to encourage sites to take down certain types of offensive or obscene content (e.g. child porn), and the ISPs asserted, quite reasonably, that taking such action should not render them “publishers,” which would then leave their companies vulnerable to endless litigation stemming from unlawful content posted by users.

Since then, however, Section 230 immunity has been interpreted in court cases, and portrayed in the blogosphere, as a blanket protection allowing sites to take no action to mitigate harm by removing unlawful or harmful content. For the past 20 years, Section 230 has provided the statutory basis for ISP claims of universal neutrality—the “just a platform” argument—no matter what occurs on their sites. This premise was soundly rejected by both parties in Congress during hearings conducted in response to evidence that Russian agents had purchased American political ads on major platforms.

Hassell v. Bird

The facts of this case are quite simple. Ava Bird posted three reviews of Dawn Hassell’s law firm on Yelp, and these were held by a California trial court to be defamatory. No party disputes the unlawfulness of the reviews. Hassell successfully sued Bird and purposely did not name Yelp as a defendant in her litigation. The court ordered Bird to remove the reviews and also issued an order to Yelp to remove the content even though it was a non-party to the litigation.

Yelp, along with a host of amici, argued that the court order violated both Section 230 and its right to due process. A California Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, but this week, the State Supreme Court reversed, with the majority holding that the injunction indeed violates Section 230 and, thus, it was unnecessary to rule on the due process claim. Nevertheless, a concurring opinion by Justice Kruger does address the due process issue and holds that Yelp is correct in asserting that it had a right to its “day in court.”

So, as a practical matter, if you were in Hassell’s position, here’s the Catch-22 emphasized in this case: Section 230 forecloses the option of suing a web platform for harm stemming from unlawful conduct by a user. BUT, in this case, because Hassell did not name Yelp as a party, it then claimed that it was denied due process and, therefore, should not have to comply with a court order to remove Bird’s reviews. If that sounds like the platform gets to do whatever it wants, that’s because it is.

The CA Supreme Court described Hassell’s decision not to name Yelp a “litigation strategy” employed to “accomplish indirectly what Congress has clearly forbidden them to achieve directly.” If Congress chooses to address some of the the unintended consequences of Section 230, this seems like a statement worth underlining. Because Hassell’s decision not to sue Yelp—to hold them in no way liable for the harm done by Bird—appears to this reasonable observer as entirely consistent with the intent of 230 to shield platforms from costly and chronic litigation. As Justice Liu states in his dissent …

“No one has burdened Yelp with defending against liability for potentially defamatory posts. Here, the trial court ordered Yelp to remove postings that have been already adjudicated to be defamatory. Hassell sued Bird, not Yelp, and the litigation did not require Yelp to incur expenses to defend its editorial judgments or any of its business practices.”

That is the heart and soul of Section 230 at its origin, and it is consistent with recent declarations by both parties in Congress that the immunity in the CDA was never designed to obviate all platform responsibility. To the contrary, it was designed to encourage that responsibility. So, to the extent the majority opinion in this case rests on a plausible, or even reasonable, reading of the statute, this case may serve as guidance to Congress for considering revision of Section 230.

Is the language of 230 problematic?

Specifically, the majority opinion holds that Section 230(e)(3) bars this injunction against Yelp as a non-party due to the wording, “No cause of action my be brought and liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Thus, if it is this court’s understanding that the order for Yelp to remove unlawful content is a prohibited “cause of action,” but that a plaintiff is simultaneously barred by the same statute from actually suing Yelp, then it may be time for Congress to reconcile exactly this discrepancy.

I agree completely that Yelp should not be sued, or otherwise held liable, for any harm that may have been done to Hassell through the unlawful conduct of Bird. But in the realities of the digital market, where serious harm is both easily and cheaply effected, there is no justice in holding that a platform’s immunity from costly liability extends to an immunity from taking responsible, mitigating action which costs nothing. In this regard, Justice Kruger’s concurring opinion also recognizes the difficult realities of the statute, stating…

“Section 230 has brought to an end to a number of lawsuits seeking remedies for a wide range of civil wrongs accomplished through Internet postings—including, but not limited to, defamation, housing discrimination, negligence, securities fraud, cyberstalking, and material support of terrorism.”

And in fairness, she further states…

“Whether to maintain the status quo is a question only Congress can decide. But at least when it comes to addressing new questions about the scope of section 230 immunity, we should proceed cautiously, lest we inadvertently forbid and even broader swath of legal action than Congress could reasonably have intended.”

Justice Cuéllar concurred with the opinion on the basis that a proper finding of fact was not made regarding Yelp’s conduct that would render it properly a subject to an injunction as a non-party. But at the same time, he had this to say about Section 230 immunity …

“To the extend the Communications Decency Act merits its name, it is because it was not meant to be—and it is not—a reckless declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Nothing in section 230 allows Yelp to ignore a properly issued court order meant to stop the spread of defamatory or otherwise harmful information on the Internet.”

Ouch. That allusion to Barlow is a pretty solid kick right in the EFFin gut. And that’s from a justice ruling in Yelp’s favor—for now. Suffice to say, there is plenty in this decision that stops short of the internet activist view that Section 230 immunity is both absolute and sacrosanct. Even the majority opinion is tempered by editorial comments acknowledging that platform irresponsibility causes tangible social harm.

As a final comment, I’ll pose the following food for thought:

Once a court has vitiated the role of the original author of some unlawful content (i.e. Bird has been found guilty and ordered under pain of contempt to remove her reviews), how is it that the platform which continues to publish the unlawful content is not then held to be the “author” of that content? If I plagiarize a work, I am guilty as the “author” of the plagiarism; and if I further use plagiarized material to defame someone, the original author is not liable for the defamation; I am.

Moreover, if Bird requests that Yelp remove her reviews and they do not, is Yelp not violating her First Amendment rights by means of coerced speech; and are they also not potentially liable for forcing her into a state of contempt of court by means of that coerced speech?

A Case for CASE in Brammer v. Violent Hues?

Following up on yesterday’s post about Brammer v. Violent Hues, it occurs to me that this narrative—at least as much as is publicly available—lends itself to a rationale for the proposed CASE Act, which would create a small-claim copyright tribunal at the U.S. Copyright Office. I won’t repeat all the particulars of the bill itself (see post here), but one of the challenges to the efficacy of CASE is that it is a voluntary alternative to federal court.

When copyright critics like EFF malign the CASE Act, they employ standard hyperbole, claiming it will create a cash-cow for every copyright troll in America. This claim obfuscates the actual mechanisms in the proposal, not the least of which is that a defendant has to voluntarily agree to the tribunal as a dispute resolution. This response is then countered by the prediction that if the small claim option is voluntary, it will never be used, thus making it a boondoggle of a proposal. Admittedly, the voluntary aspect does raise this very question, but after learning about the Brammer case, it seemed like a pretty good example as to why both parties might have opted for a small claim alternative had it existed.

A Relatively Simple Matter Complicated by Litigation

Based on the available evidence, Russell Brammer does not appear to be rabidly litigious; and Fernando Mico of Violent Hues does not appear to be ideologically determined to infringe. Mico made a mistake, perhaps an unwise mistake; but the fact that he removed Brammer’s image from his website upon receipt of a C&D letter indicates that he did not firmly believe he had a right to use the photograph. (This should have weighed against his fair use claim, but that’s another matter.)

At the same time, although Brammer is obviously willing and able to litigate, he cannot be expecting a very high damage award in this particular case. I have no idea whether he requested a settlement fee before proceeding to litigation, which would be normal in this kind of circumstance; but whether he took that step or skipped it, both he and Mico could, theoretically, avoid the up-front cost of litigation by mutually agreeing to move the venue to the proposed USCO tribunal. (Note that I make no judgment about Brammer’s motives or whether I think he should have sued. I’m only looking at the legal process based on his right to make a claim and Mico’s right to a defense.)

The Small Claim Tribunal Would Make Short Work of This Case

The fact that the Virginia Court mucked up the ruling so badly—straining against legal doctrine—emphasizes the value of the small claim option for plaintiffs and defendants in this kind of dispute. Not only is Brammer now forced either to drop his claim or appeal at greater legal cost, but Mico is likewise required to defend himself as the case moves up to the appellate court. And this appeal is only necessary because the district court made egregious errors of law—mistakes the USCO would be unlikely to make—on a relatively straightforward case.

One advantage of the small claim tribunal is that the proposed panel is only expert in copyright law, which is not at all true of federal judges. This can be beneficial to defendants as well as claimants, as there will naturally be cases that favor defendants just as plainly as Brammer favors the plaintiff. So, yes, I would expect that the USCO tribunal to readily find that Violent Hues had infringed, but I also predict the appeals court will come to the same conclusion, only much later and for legal costs that will exceed the amount of an award the USCO tribunal would likely allow in this instance.

So, looking at the available facts, if Brammer had offered Mico the option of resolution via the small claim tribunal, while making clear that he was able to pursue federal litigation, it seems not unreasonable that Mico might voluntarily choose the small claim venue. Since the alternative would be to opt out and wind up exactly where this case is now, why not take a shot at a simpler and cheaper resolution?

I do not presume to truly know the motives or mindsets of other people. And I also admit to interpolating a bit from the data. But at the same time, this kind of infringement—one creator improperly using the work of another creator—is exemplary of “garden variety” copyright cases. And the whole purpose of the CASE Act is to provide one option—in addition to out-of-court settlements, and other resolutions—to more affordably and efficiently address these low-level conflicts.

For sure, the EFF is wrong to claim that the CASE Act will conjure all manner of copyright mischief, which is simply not possible within the provisions of the bill. At worst, the small claim tribunal won’t work; not enough people will use it, and it will be scrapped as a good intention. But even the known particulars of this Brammer case are so familiar to thousands of rights holders and defendants, that it suggests to me the CASE proposal is likely to be more widely applicable than many critics might assume.

Incoherent Copyright Ruling Should Anger Photographers

My colleague Stephen Carlisle at Nova Southeastern University already made short work of the aberration of copyright law and fair use analysis that occurred recently in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. But I wanted to expand on a few elements that caught my attention. In the case Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions, LLC, the court’s deference to the defendant’s appeals to good faith and fair use resulted in an opinion that so dramatically flies in the face of legal doctrine that (as Carlisle notes) it would obliterate copyright in photography altogether.

At issue is a time-lapse photograph of Washington D.C.’s Adams Morgan neighborhood taken by Russell Brammer in 2011 and registered for copyright in 2016. Also in 2016, a cropped version of the image was used without license on a website suggesting “things to do” in Washington as ancillary promotion of the Northern Virginia Film Festival, which is organized by Violent Hues Productions.

Brammer sent a Cease & Desist letter in 2017, and Violent Hues immediately removed the image; but Brammer then sued for copyright infringement, and Violent Hues moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had made a fair use of the photograph. Before we get to that defense, though, we have to note this statement of facts from the opinion:

“Violent Hues’ owner, Fernando Mico, found the photo online. He alleges that he saw no indication that the photo was copyrighted and believed he was making use of a publicly available photograph.”

So, even prior to the court’s fair use analysis, it allows two substantial errors to be dispositive in this case. The first is overlooking the fact that an “indication” of copyright is not required. All works are automatically protected, if they were produced after January 1, 1978; and it’s hard to fathom how any judge would not know this. Hence, Mico’s assumption that a work is “publicly available” because it was found online is plainly invalid as a matter of black-letter law.

Second, even where a court might consider leniency for an unintended infringement made in good faith, then it seems this court did not consider it relevant that Fernando Mico is a professional filmmaker. Violent Hues is a production company offering “Script to Screen” services, and Mico even signed a distribution contract for his indie feature film in 2014. This is not some teenager who might be confused about the use of images in the digital age. This is a professional image-maker and copyright owner, who cannot reasonably claim to be so naive about images he “finds online.”

Transformativeness is Still a Doctrine Without Definition

The truly staggering aspects of this opinion are found in the court’s rationale for finding fair use. The fact that the interpretation of “transformativeness” here negates more than a century of copyright law related to photography should serve as compelling evidence that the doctrine remains incoherent and meddlesome at best. The opinion states:

“Here, Violent Hues’ use of the photograph was transformative in function and purpose. While Brammer’s purpose in capturing and publishing the photograph was promotional and expressive, Violent Hues’ purpose in using the photograph was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area.” [Emphasis added]

This confluence of vagueness undermines copyright in photography at its core. By the logic of this opinion, if the makers of a pregnancy test want to make unlicensed use of Annie Leibovitz’s famous portrait of pregnant Demi Moore in a print ad, they’re free to do so because their “purpose” is different from Leibovitz’s original “purpose.”* And we could keep conjuring such examples ad infinitum. Based on this holding, any photograph may be used by any party as long as it can be argued that observers will interpret a meaning that is distinct from the photographer’s original intent.

That reasoning does not even square with the history of creative expression itself—let alone copyright law. It is widely understood in the world of art that the creator’s intent may vary considerably from the viewer’s interpretation, and neither understanding is necessarily “incorrect.” What are we to make, then, of photographs that are simultaneously expressive and informative—images that may be considered both journalism and fine art by one set of viewers, but perhaps scorned for various reasons by a different set of viewers? Unless a court is required to compare and contrast two expressive works (i.e. in a real fair use case), it has no basis for wandering into this semantic and subjective minefield.

Ordinarily, the courts are not expected to concern themselves with the metaphysics of art when straightforward, unlicensed copying of a work occurs, as it did in this case. The court contends that by placing an “expressive” work on an “informational” website, the use was “transformative,” thus tilting toward fair use. As Carlisle notes, however, the broadly-informational nature of the site itself has nothing to do with the fact that Mico selected Brammer’s photograph because it’s a “cool” image. In other words, it was chosen because of its expressive qualities, regardless of the context in which it was used.

This reasoning is supported by the fact that, as a professional image-maker, Mico can be presumed to have judged the difference between Brammer’s expressive work and a more pedestrian, informative, photo of the same neighborhood. In fact, the more expressive a work is, the less we can generally consider it to be informative, and a time-lapse photo of Adams Morgan is hardly a literal representation of the experience the visitor is likely to have (at least while sober). Then, because the photograph was chosen to promote tourism as a feature of attending the film festival, the court erred in finding the use to be non-commercial under the first factor.

Still, even if Brammer’s photo were less “cool,” (i.e. more informative), it should not matter; and the court has no legal grounds for even weighing the amount of expressiveness in this particular case. Exploitation of a copyrighted photograph — even a “pedestrian” image — without a license is an infringement. End of discussion.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the original work, the grounds for fair use analysis under the “transformativeness” test are a) if the user alters the original work in a way that creates a truly new expression; or b) if use of the work is essential to the functioning of a new technology or service that is itself transformative to society—and this includes the case (Vanderhye v. iParadigms) cited by the Court to support its application of “transformativeness.”

In Brammer, Violent Hues makes no claim of fair use to create a new expression, and there is nothing transformative—based on either case law or common sense—about using a photograph to boost tourist attractions while promoting an event. Since Violent Hues’s use meets neither standard, “transformativeness” should not have received much consideration, let alone a finding in the defendant’s favor.

Undermining Copyright in Photography

The real hazard in this ruling—the one that should make photographers apoplectic—is that the court contends that Brammer’s photograph is expressive but that Violent Hues made a fair use because Mico somehow used only the informative aspects of the image based on the factual nature of the subject matter. The opinion states…

“The photograph in question contained creative elements (such as lighting and shutter speed choices) but was also a factual depiction of a real-world location: the Adams Morgan neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Violent Hues’ [sic] used the photo purely for its factual content, to provide festival attendees a depiction of the Adams Morgan neighborhood.”

This metaphysical parsing of the expression from the information in Brammer’s photograph inverts 124 years of legal doctrine. Since the mid-19th century, it is well- established law that ideas and facts are not protectable while creative expressions are protectable; and this principle collided with photography near the end of the century because it was plainly understood that a camera always captures whatever “facts” are placed before the lens. Thus, the copyrightability of photographs was challenged in 1882 in Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1884.

Since then, both copyright law and our understanding of photography have evolved. And in both cases, it is sufficient that a human actor create the photograph, whether he painstakingly arranges every element in front of the lens or makes snap decisions to capture ephemeral chaos on a city street. In neither case do we apportion incremental authorship of a photo relative to the “amount of factual information” it contains. The whole work—expressive and informative together—is protected and the bundle of rights are vested in its creator. Such subtle distinctions are only made when a court must consider whether a subsequent work infringes a prior work, but that is not the circumstance in Brammer.

This may be confused with the doctrine of independent creation, which allows for the fact that two photographers are likely to capture nearly identical images of a given subject (e.g. of Niagara Falls). But this only means that Photographer A may not sue Photographer B for infringement since neither can copyright Niagara Falls itself. But apropos this particular case, both photographers would have copyrights in their individual images, and neither photo may be used to promote a Niagara Falls hotel without license.

To underscore how absurd this ruling is, if it is truly the Virginia Court’s opinion that Brammer’s “expressive” photograph is separately an “informative” photograph, then Brammer should not only appeal, but he should also sue for infringement of his right to prepare derivative works. This is preposterous, of course, because a copy of a work cannot be a “derivative” work; but somehow, by virtue of internet magic and the fog of the transformativeness doctrine, the court here sees a separate image fixed in an identical copy. Expect this ruling to be appealed and overturned.
______

* I purposely cited the Moore photograph because Leibovitz lost an important fair use case when this image was parodied by Paramount studios in 1998 for the promotion of the film Naked Gun 33 1/3. The distinction is essential to illustrate how far the idea of “transformativeness” has strayed from finding fair use that supports new forms of expression.

Author: David Newhoff