When the Copyright Act was amended in 1976, the words “tweet,” “viral,” and “embed” invoked thoughts of a bird, a disease, and a reporter. Decades later, these same terms have taken on new meanings as the centerpieces of an interconnected world wide web in which images are shared with dizzying speed over the course of any given news day.
That technology and terminology change means that, from time to time, questions of copyright law will not be altogether clear. In answering questions with previously uncontemplated technologies, however, the Court must not be distracted by new terms or new forms of content, but turn instead to familiar guiding principles of copyright. In this copyright infringement case, concerning a candid photograph of a famous sports figure, the Court must construe how images shown on one website but stored on another website’s server implicate an owner’s exclusive display right.
Here, plaintiff Justin Goldman’s copyrighted photo of Tom Brady went “viral” – rapidly moving from Snapchat to Reddit to Twitter – and finally, made its way onto the websites of the defendants, who embedded the Tweet alongside articles they wrote about Tom Brady actively helping the Boston Celtics recruit basketball player Kevin Durant. Plaintiff, claiming he never publicly released or licensed his photograph, filed suit against the defendant websites, claiming a violation of his exclusive right to display his photo, under § 106(5) of the Copyright Act.
None of the defendant websites actually downloaded the Photo from Twitter, copied it, and stored it on their own servers. Rather, each defendant website merely embedded the Photo, by including the necessary embed code in their HTML instructions. As a result, all of defendants’ websites included articles about the meeting between Tom Brady and the Celtics, with the full-size Photo visible without the user having to click on a hyperlink, or a thumbnail, in order to view the Photo.
The Copyright Act of 1976, enacted in response to changing technology, gives a copyright owner several “exclusive rights,” including the exclusive right to “display the copyrighted work publicly.” To display a work, under the Act, is to “show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process.”
Specifically, in considering the display right, Congress cast a very wide net, intending to include “each and every method by which the images … comprising a … display are picked up and conveyed,” assuming that they reach the public. It further noted that “‘display’ would include the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube, or similar viewing apparatus connected with any sort of information storage and retrieval system.” Indeed, an infringement of the display right could occur “if the image were transmitted by any method (by closed or open circuit television, for example, or by a computer system) from one place to members of the public elsewhere.”
Defendants urged the court to define the scope of the display right in terms of what they refer to as the “Server Test.” According to defendants, it is “well settled” law and the facts of this case call for its application. The court did not view the Server Test as the correct application of the law with regard to the facts in case. Defendants argue that – despite the seamless presentation of the Brady Photo on their webpages – they simply provided “instructions” for the user to navigate to a third-party server on which the photo resided. According to defendants, merely providing instructions does not constitute a “display” by the defendants as a matter of law.
It is clear, therefore, that each and every defendant itself took active steps to put a process in place that resulted in a transmission of the photos so that they could be visibly shown. Most directly this was accomplished by the act of including the code in the overall design of their webpage; that is, embedding. Properly understood, the steps necessary to embed a Tweet are accomplished by the defendant website; these steps constitute a process. The plain language of the Copyright Act calls for no more.