Tex Motion to Dismiss
Content
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:45
4
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE (State Bar No. 141930) [email protected] [email protected] 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Fax: (415) 276-6599
5
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10 11
DAN LAIDMAN (State Bar [email protected] No. 274482) [email protected] DIANA PALACIOS (State Bar No. 290923) [email protected] [email protected] 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Teixeira
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 15 16 17 18 19
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public entity, ) Case No. 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW ) Plaintiff, ) ) Assigned to the Hon. Michael Fitzgerald vs. ) ) DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF JOSEPH TEIXEIRA and Does 1-10, ) MOTION AND MOTION TO ) DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S Defendants. ) COMPLAINT; SUPPORTING ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES
20 21
)) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)]
Hearing Date: June 22 22,, 201 2015 5 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 1600 [Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike (Rule 12(f)); Request For Judicial otice; Declaration Of Joseph Teixeira With Exhibit B; Declaration Of Dan Laidman; Notice of Lodging of DVDs With Exhibits A, C-F; Notice Of Manual Filing; and [Proposed] Order Filed Concurrently] Action Filed: March 12, 2015
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:46
1 2
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
3
thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald of
4
the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Courtroom
5
1600 of the Spring Street Courthouse, located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles,
6
California 90012, defendant Joseph Teixeira will and hereby does move this Court,
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing the City 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of 8 9 10
of Inglewood’s (the “City”) Complaint with prejudice. This Motion is made on the following grounds: 1.
This action arises from alleged infringement of the City’s purported
11
copyrights in its video recordings of several of its City Council meetings, but the City
12
is precluded by California law from securing copyright protection in these public
13
records. See Memoran Memorandum dum Section III.A, infra.
14
2.
Even assuming that the City could secure a copyright in its video
15
recordings of City Council meetings, Mr. Teixeira’s allegedly infringing videos are
16
highly transformative political commentaries that are protected by the fair use
17
doctrine as a matter of law. See Memorandum Section III.B, infra.
18
For each of these reasons, the City’s Complaint suffers from fatal legal
19
deficiencies that cannot cannot be cured by amendment. See Memorandum Section IV,
20 21
infra. Therefore, the Complaint shou should ld be dismissed in its entirety, entirety, with prejudice. This Motion is based on this Notice Of Motion, the attached Memorandum Of
22
Points And Authorities, the concurrently-filed Declaration of Joseph Teixeira with
23
Exhibit B; Declaration of Dan Laidman; Request For Judicial Notice; Notice Of
24
Lodging of DVDs with Exhibits A, C-F; Notice of Manual Filing; and all other
25
matters of which this Court may take judicial notice, the pleadings, files, and records
26
in this action, and on such other argument as may be heard by this Court.
27 28
MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:47
1
This Motion is made following the conference of counsel that occurred on 1
2
April 9, 2015, pursuant pursuant to Local Rule 7-3. See Laidman Decl. ¶ 4.
3
DATED: April 16, 2015
4 5 6
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE DAN LAIDMAN DIANA PALACIOS By: /s/ Dan Laidman Dan Laidman
7 8
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Teixeira
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
In addition to this meet-and-confer session, Mr. Teixeira’s counsel sent a detailed letter to the City’s counsel prior to the initiation of this action explaining why the City’s threatened claim was meritless, and why Mr. Teixeira would likely be entitled to recover his attorneys’ attorneys’ fees and costs should he prevail in litig litigation. ation. Id. ¶ 3. The City did not respond respond to this correspondence, and instead proceeded with this lawsuit. Id. Because Mr. Teixeira’s defense against th thee City’s claim furthers the purpose the Copyright Copyrig ht Act, if fees the Court grants th this is Motion will § fil file e a separate motion toofrecover his attorneys’ and costs pursuant to 17 he U.S.C. 505.
MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Page
2 3
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................. ................................... ................................... ................................... ................. 1
4
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND................ ................................. ................................. ................................. ........................ ....... 3
5
A.
The City Of Inglewood’s Complaint................... ................................... ................................. ................ 3
6
B.
The City Of Inglewood’s Recordings Of Its City Council Meetings. ................. .................................. ................................... .................................... .................................... ........................ ...... 4
C.
Mr. Teixeira’s Political Commentary Videos. ....................... ..................................... .............. 5
7 8
III.
9
PLAINTIFF’S COPYRIGHT CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. ............................... .................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. ............................. ............. 8 A.
10 11
The City Has No Copyright Interest In IIts ts Public Meeting Videos. .... 9 1.
The City Cannot Copyright Its Public Meeting Videos Because California Law Does Not Specifically Authorize Such Protection. .................. .................................. ................ 10
2.
The City’s Assertion Of Copyright In Its I ts Public Meeting Videos Is Incompatible With WellEstablished State Law And Public P Policy. olicy................... ............................... ............. 12
12 13 14
B.
16
Mr. Teixeira’s Use Of Clips From City Council Meetings In His Political Commentaries Is Independently Protected By The Fair Use Doctrine. ................... ..................................... ................................... ................................... ................................ .............. 15
17
1.
Fair Use Is Applied Expansively Where, As Here, A Claim Implicates Constitutionally Protected Political Speech. ................. ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................ .............. 15
19
2.
Fair Use May Be Decided On A Motion To Dismiss. ............. 16
20 21
3.
15
18
Each Statutory Factor Strongly Favors Fair Use. .................... 17 a. The Purpose And Character Of The Use ..................... ....................... .. 18
22
b.
The Nature Of The Allegedly Copyrighted Works ..... ....... .. 21
23
c.
The Amount And Substantiality Used ................. ........................... .......... 21
24
d.
The Effect On The Market ................ .................................. ............................. ........... 23
25
IV.
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ....... 25
26
V.
CONCLUSION................. ................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... ...................... .... 25
27 28
i MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:49
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
Page
2 3 4
Cases
5
Banks v. Manchester,
6
128 U.S. 244 (1888) .... ..................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................... ...................... ..... 14
7
Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................... ........................................... ................................... .................................... .................... .. 1
8 9 10 11 12
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .... ..................... ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ........................ ....... 8 Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. Partnership, 737 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................ ............................................. .................................. ................................... .................... 1 15 5 Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners,
13
682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................ ............................................. .................................. ................................... .................... 1 17 7
14
Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 717 (2011) ....................... ........................................ .................................. ................................... .................................. ................ 12
15 16 17 18
Building Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Technology, Inc., 628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980) ................ ................................. ................................... .................................... ........................... ......... 9, 14 Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F. Supp. 2d 962, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .. .................... ..................................... ............................. .......... 9, 16, 25
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ................ ................................. ................................... .................................... ............................ .......... 2, 18, 21, 22 Caner v. Autry, 16 F. Supp. 3d 689, 710 (W.D. Va. 2014) ................... ..................................... .................................... ........................ ...... 19 Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013).................. .................................... .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 17 CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646 (1986) .............................. ............................................... .................................. .................................. ............................ ........... 14 Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. General Signal S ignal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1983)................ .................................. .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 18 ii MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:50
1 2 3 4 5
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2009) ......................... .......................................... ................................... ............................. ........... passim Daly v. Viacom, Inc., 238 F. F . Supp. 2d 1118 ((N.D. N.D. Cal. 2002) .................. .................................... ................................... ............................... .............. 9 Dhillon v. Does 1-10,
6
2014 WL 722592 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) ................... ..................................... ................................ .............. 18, 19
7
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) .... ..................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................... ...................... ..... 15
8 9 10
Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986) ................. ................................... ................................... ................................... .................... 1, 24, 25
11
Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) ... .................... ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ..................... .... 15
12
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
13
471 U.S. 539 (1985) .... ..................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................... ...................... ..... 21
14
Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................. ............................................... .................................... ................................... ................... 1
15 16
Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Moral Majority Inc., 796 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................... ........................................ .................................... ....................... ..... 2, 16, 18, 21
17 18 19
In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................... ............................................. ................................... ................................... ....................... ..... 8 International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. L.A. Export
20 21
Terminal, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th 287 (1999) ....................... ........................................ ................................. ................................. .......................... ......... 14
22
Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Wis. 2013) ........................ ......................................... ................................. ................ 19, 24
23 24
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2005) ................. ................................... ................................... ............................... .............. 8
25 26
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................ ............................................. .................................. ................................... .................... 1 16 6
27 28
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998).................. .................................... .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 22 iii MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:51
1 2 3 4 5
Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mt. Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................ ............................................. .................................. ................................... .................... 1 19 9 Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1986)................ .................................. .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 19 Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner,
6
889 So.2d 871 (2004) ................ ................................. ................................... .................................... .................................... .................... .. 9, 11
7
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) .... ..................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................... ...................... ..... 16
8
National Rifle Ass’n of America America v. Handgun Control Federation of 9 Ohio, 15 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 1994) ........................... ............................................. ................................... ................................... ..................... ... 19 10 International, ApS v. Henry Ho Holt lt & Co., 11 New Era Publications International, 12
695 F. F . Supp. 1493 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ............................. ............................................... ................................... ....................... ...... 13
13 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964) .... ..................... ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ........................ ....... 1
14 15
Norse v. Henry Holt and and Co., 847 F. Supp. 142 (N.D. Cal. 1994) .................. .................................... .................................... .................................... .................. 18
16
North County Parents Org. v. v. Dep’t of Education, 17 23 Cal. App. 4th 144 (1994) ....................... ........................................ ................................. ................................. .......................... ......... 13 18
Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Center for Bio-Ethical Bio-Ethical Reform, 19 868 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. 2012) .................. .................................... ................................. ............... 3, 20, 21, 24 20 21
Righthaven v. Realty One Group, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010) ................. ................................... ..................................... ....................... .... 17
22 23
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992).................. .................................... .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 22
24 25 26 27
Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60545; 87 U.S.P.Q.2D 1730 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ......... passim Sedgwick Claims Management Servs. v. Delsman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61825 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2009) ................. .......................... ......... 17, 19, 25
28
iv MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................... ........................................... ................................... .................................... .................. 24 Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 157 (2013) ..................... ...................................... .................................. .................................. .............................. ............. 13, 14 Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) .. .................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ...................... .... 1 Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .... ..................... .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................... ...................... ..... 15 Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................... ........................................... ................................... .................................... .................. 25
11
Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2014)................ .................................. .................................... .................................... ........................... ......... 21, 22
12
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
13
551 U.S. 308 (2007) .... ..................... ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ........................ ....... 8
14
United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) ................. ................................... ..................................... ............................ ......... 12
15 16
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) .................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ............................... ............. 14
17 18 19 20 21
Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)........................ 1990)........................................... ..................................... .................. 15, 16, 19 Wright v. Warner Books, 953 F. 2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991)................. ................................... .................................... .................................... ............................. ........... 18
22
Zella v. E.W. Scripps, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ..................... ....................................... ................................... ............................ ........... 8
23
Statutes
24 25 26
17 U.S.C. § 105.............................. ............................................... ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ...................... ..... 9 § 107 ............. .............................. .................................. ................................... ................................... .................................. ................................. ................ 2, 15 § 107(1)-(4) ............... ................................ .................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. ......................... ......... 17
27 28
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16................. ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ................... 1 v MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:53
1 2 3 4
Cal. Gov’t Code § 6253(b) .......... ........................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................. ............... 3, 11, 13, 24 § 6254.9........................... ........................................... ................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. .................... .... 10 § 6257.5........................... ........................................... ................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. .................... .... 11 § 54950........................... ............................................ .................................. ................................. ................................. .................................. ..................... .... 14 § 54953.5(b) ....................... ........................................ ................................... ................................... .................................. ............................ ........... 3, 13
5 6
Cal. Education Code §§ 1044, 35170, 72207 ................................................. ............................................................. ............ 11
9
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 13159.8........................ .......................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. ................................... .................... 12 § 25201.11....................... ....................................... ................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. .................... .... 11 § 130251.15..................... ..................................... ................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................... ... 12
10
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24–72–203(4)................ ................................. .................................. ................................... ............................... ............. 11
7 8
11 Nevada Rev. Stat. § 239.010(1) 239.010(1) ................. .................................. .................................. .................................. ............................... .............. 11 12 13
South Dakota Codified Laws § 1–27–1 .. ................... ................................... ................................... ................................. ................ 11 Utah Code § 63G–2–201 63G–2–201(10)(b) (10)(b) ................................ ................................................. ................................... ................................ .............. 1 11 1
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Rules
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ................ ................................. .................................. .................................. ................................... ................................. ............... 8, 9, 16, 17 12(c) ................ ................................. ................................... ................................... .................................. ................................... .................................. ................ 16 Constitutional Constitution al Provisions
Cal. Const. Article 1 § 3 ................. ................................... ................................... .................................. ................................... ................................... .................................. ................... .. 14 § 3(b)(1)-(2) ................. .................................. ................................. ................................. .................................. .................................. ....................... ...... 14 § 3, subd. (b) ............... ............................... ................................. .................................. .................................. ................................. ........................ ........ 10
22 23 24
Other Authorities
1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 5.14 (2014) ................ ................................. ................................... ................................... .................................. .................................. .................................. ................. 9
25 26
4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 4:81 (2015) ..................... ........................................ ............................ ......... 9
27 28
vi MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:54
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
I.
2 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Joseph Teixeira is an Inglewood resident who makes videos commenting on
4
local politics. His videos are sharply critical critical of the public statements statements and conduct of
5
Inglewood’s Mayor at City City Council meetings. The videos feature short clips clips from
6
the official recordings of these public proceedings, heavily modified with original
7
text and narration which consists of Mr. Teixeira responding to the Mayor’s remarks
8
and criticizing his political political positions. Mr. Teixeira’s “speech concerning public
9
affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government,” and it
10
“occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First F irst Amendment values, and is
11
entitled to special protection.” protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1215 (2011). (2011).
12 13
In an unprecedented act of censorship, the City of Inglewood is suing its own citizen for using footage from City Council meetings in his videos commenting on
14 public affairs. The City’s aim is clearly to silence Mr. Teixeira, and to punish him 15
for his harsh criticism of the Mayor. But his speech is constitutionally constitutionally protected protected,, and
16
fully consistent with our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate
17
on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well
18
include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government
19
and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
20 21
Through this action, the City is transparently attempting to circumvent these 2 constitutional protections – as well as California’s anti-SLAPP statute – by turning
22
to copyright as a vehicle vehicle to silence Mr. Teixeira’s political political speech. But “Copyright
23
law is not designed to stifle critics.” Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 432, 437 (9th Cir.
24 2
27
The anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. § 425.16) provides a means for the early dismissal of claims targeting free speech and petitioning activities that “are brought to deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing doing so.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). The City’s retaliatory claim falls squarely within the scope of the law, but Inglewood is
28
exploiting a loophole in which the statute does599 notF.3d apply to federal claims brought in federal court. See Hilton v. Hall Hallmark mark Cards, 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010).
25 26
1 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:55
1
1986). The City’s ill-fitting attemp attemptt to misuse copyright law to suppress the views of
2
a political opponent is entirely meritless for several independent reasons.
3
First, this action is premised on Inglewood’s claim to hold copyrights in its
4
video recordings of City Council meetings, see Cmplt. ¶¶ 14, 19, Cmplt. Ex A; Exs.
5
A-F, but the City is precluded by California law from copyrighting these public
6
records. Section III.A. State law determines if state and local g government overnment ag agencies encies
7
can secure copyrights in their works, and California’s broad mandate of unrestricted
8
disclosure of public records “overrides a governmental agency’s ability to claim a
9
copyright in its work,” work,” unless state law expressly authorizes authorizes such protection protection.. County
10
of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1335 (2009 (2009). ). No state law
11
authorizes Inglewood to to copyright its City Co Council uncil meeting videos. Section III.A.1.
12
To the contrary, its attempt to use copyright to limit public access to these public
13
records is plainly incompatible incompatible with state law aand nd public policy policy.. Section III.A.2.
14
Second, the City’s claim is independently barred because Mr. Teixeira’s
15
videos criticizing government officials on issues of public concern are quintessential
16
examples of fair use. See 17 U.S.C. § 1 107. 07. The doctrine is at iits ts most ex expansive pansive
17
here, as the City’s claim targets a citizen’s use of public records r ecords to criticize his
18
government, which is core First Amendment speech speech.. Section III.B.1. As Mr.
19
Teixeira’s videos are incorporated by reference into the pleadings, and it is obvious
20 21
from reviewing these works that fair use applies as a matter of law, the issue of fair use is properly decided decided on a motion to di dismiss. smiss. Section III.B.2.
22
It is readily apparent that Mr. Teixeira uses the City Council meeting video
23
clips in a highly transformative manner – modifying the original footage f ootage with his
24
own on-screen text and narration and juxtaposing the clips with other materials – to
25
criticize Inglewood politicians for their conduct and statements at these public
26
meetings. Section III.B.3. Copyright law encourages such transformative use. See
27
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). (1994). See also Hustler
28
Magazine Inc. v. Moral Majority Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1986) (fair use 2 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:56
comment”); Northland Family Plan Planning ning Clinic, Inc. v. Cen Center ter for 1 protects “political comment”); 2
Bio-Ethical Reform, 868 F. Supp. 2d 962, 970-79 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (analogous
videos protected by fair use). 3 political commentary videos 4
Moreover, California law requires Inglewood to make its public meeting
5
videos available for viewing free of charge, and precludes it from charging more than
6
the “direct costs of duplication” duplication” for copies. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 62 6253(b), 53(b), 54953.5(b).
7
Thus there can be no commercial market for the City’s meeting videos as a matter of
8
law, and even if there could be, Mr. Teixeira’s sharply critical videos – with titles
9
like “Inglewood Mayor James Butts Lies, Hiding Dangerous Traffic Problems P roblems At
10
The Forum” – scarcely serve as a market substitute for the City’s unvarnished gavel-
11
to-gavel recordings recordings of its Coun Council cil meetings. Section III.B.3. The City also coul could d
12
hold no more than a “thin” copyright at best in its Council meeting videos, and Mr.
13
Teixeira has used no more footage than is reasonably necessary in light of his
14
obvious purpose purpose of po political litical critiq critique. ue. Id. Consequently, al alll of the statutory factors
15
unambiguously favor a finding of fair use in Mr. Teixeira’s favor. Because the City has failed to state a claim for each of these reasons, and any
16 17
amendment would be futile in light of the fundamental f undamental legal deficiencies, Mr.
18
Teixeira respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. II.
19
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20 21
A.
The City Of Inglewood’s Complaint. The City of Inglewood “is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the
22
State of California.” California.” Cmplt. ¶ 9. Mr. Teixeira is an in individual dividual residin residing g in the City of
23
Inglewood. Id. ¶ 11. He is actively enga engaged ged in public affairs, regularly attends and
24
speaks at City Council meetings, submits public records requests for information
25
about local government, and creates documentary-style videos about Inglewood
under er the name, 26 politics and municipal issues, which he posts to a YouTube page und 27
“Dehol Truth.” Cmplt. ¶¶ 11, 19; Declaration of Joseph Teixeira at ¶¶ 2-10; Exs. A-
28
F. The City alleges that Mr. Teixeira h has as infringed its copyrights by posting to 3 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:57
1
YouTube six videos, which use portions of the City’s recordings r ecordings of five Inglewood
2
City Council meetings, meetings, publicly held on the following dates: 7/20/2010, 5/22 5/22/2012, /2012,
3
4/11/2013, 4/23/2013, and 2/22/20 2/22/2014. 14. Cmplt. ¶¶ 2, 19. The City alleges that it has
4
submitted applications for copyright registrations in its video recordings of two of
5
these Council meetings, 5/22 5/22/2012 /2012 and 4/23/2013. Id. ¶¶ 1 14, 4, 19, Cmplt. Ex. A. The
6
City does not allege that it has registered or attempted to register copyrights in its
7
video recordings of the Council Council meetings of 7/20/ 7/20/2010, 2010, 4/11/2013 4/11/2013,, or 2/11/2014. Id.
8
B.
9 10 11
3
The City Of Inglewood’s Recordings Of Its City Council Meetings.
The underlying “works” that form the basis of this action are Inglewood’s video recordings of several of of its City Council meeti meetings. ngs. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 2, 19, Ex. A. 7/20/2010 City Council Meeting: The City’s recording of this Counc Council il
●
12
meeting is four hours, 4 40 0 minutes, 55 seconds long. See Teixeira Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. It
13
opens with approximately one minute, 20 seconds of photographs from community
14
events, and ends with various photographs being displayed for approximately two
15
minutes, none of which is included in any of Mr. Teixeira’s videos. Id.; Exs. A-1-A-
16
6. The rest of of the vi video deo is an unadorned recording of the meeting. See Ex. C.
17
5/22/2012 City Council Meeting: The City’s recording of this meet meeting ing is
●
18
three hours, four minutes, 32 seconds long. See Teixeira Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. Ex. D. It opens
19
with approximately three minutes, 30 seconds of photographs from community
20 21
events, none of which is included in any of Mr. Teixeira’s videos. Id.; Exs. A-1-A-6. The rest of the video is an unadorned recording of th thee meeting. See Ex. D.
22
4/23/2013 City Council Meeting: The City’s recording of this Counc Council il
●
23
meeting is two hours, 42 minutes, 27 seconds long. See Laidman Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. F. It
24
opens with a photograph from an event that is on-screen for approximately seven
25
seconds, and ends with various photographs being displayed for approximately one
26 27 28
3
The City’s pursuit of this action despite its failure to properly register the
purportedly copyrightpolitical copyrighted ed works underscores the true nature nature of this litigation, which which is aimed at suppressing polit ical speech. See Concurrently Filed Mot Motion ion to Strike. 4 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:58
1
minute, 30 seconds, none none of which is include included d in any of Mr. Teixeira’s video videos. s. Id.;
2
Exs. A-1-A-6. The rest of the video is an un unadorned adorned recording of the meeting. meeting. Ex. F. 2/11/2014 City Council Meeting: The City’s recording of this Counc Council il
3
●
4
meeting is two hours, 37 minutes, 57 seconds long. See Teixeira Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E. It
5
opens with a photograph from an event that is on-screen for approximately five
6
seconds, and ends with various photographs being displayed for approximately one
7
minute, 30 seconds, none none of which is include included d in any of Mr. Teixeira’s video videos. s. Id.;
8
Exs. A-1-A-6. The rest of the video is an un unadorned adorned recording of the meeting. Ex. E.
9
C.
10
Mr. Teixeira’s Political Commentary Videos.
The Complaint identifies six allegedly infringing v videos. ideos. Cmplt. ¶ 19. As
11
detailed below, each is a documentary-style commentary on public affairs that uses
12
heavily modified clips from recordings of Council meetings to support Mr. Teixeira’s
13
criticism of Inglewood’s Mayor’s comments and conduct at the public meetings. Video One: https://www.youtu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyCqRiZX be.com/watch?v=UyCqRiZXRH8 RH8
14
●
15
Video One is titled “James Butts Accuses The City Clerk Of Election Fraud,”
16
or “James T. Butts Jr. Accuses City Clerk Yvonne Horton of Election Fraud!” Fr aud!”
17
Teixeira Decl. ¶ 3(a); Exs. A-1 (video); (video); B-1 (screenshot). The 14 minute, 56 second-
18
long video criticizes the conduct of Mr. Butts, then a mayoral candidate, at the
19
7/20/2010 meeting, at which the body considered a report from the City Clerk about
20 21
whether Mr. Butts should be removed from the ballot because of questions about his residency. Ex. A-1. Video One uses clips of Mr. Bu Butts’ tts’ own public comments at the
22
meeting to evaluate and criticize the remarks that he made about the City Clerk and
23
her investigation, and to illustrate Mr. Butts’ alleged violations of City Council rules
24
at the meeting, as described in original text and voiceover narration superimposed
25
onto the short meeting clips that are interspersed throughout throughout the video. Id. Video Two: https://www.youtube.co https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZruE0a1UF8g m/watch?v=ZruE0a1UF8g
26
●
27
Video Two is titled “James T. Butts Jr. Misleads the Public About His Voter
28
Registration.” Teixeira D Decl. ecl. ¶ 3(b); Ex. A-2 (video); B-2 (screenshot). The 145 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:59
1
minute, 53-second video follows up on the issues presented in Video One, asking,
2
“So, were James Butts’ allegations against the City Clerk’s Office fair and accurate
3
or even relevant? Let’s look at ea each ch one one.” .” Id. at 02:12-02:19. The vid video eo exam examines ines
4
each of Mayor Butts’ allegations in detail, using short clips from his comments at the
5
7/20/2010 meeting juxtaposed with original text and narration and images of other
evaluate his claims. Id. at 02:20-14:18. It concludes with harsh 6 public records to evaluate 7
criticism of Mr. Butts’ conduct and fitness to serve as mayor. Id. at 14:19-14:49. Video Three: https://www.youtub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUUZdTNe e.com/watch?v=gUUZdTNe7CA 7CA
8
●
9
Video Three is titled “Lying Politicians,” or “James T Butts Jr Alibi or
10
apology.” Teixeira De Decl. cl. ¶ 3(c); Ex. A-3 (video); B-3 (screenshot). The three
11
minute, 43-second video opens with on-screen text stating that one can tell when
and nd then shows 12 politicians are trying to hide something by their body language, a 13
footage from the 5/22/2012 Council meeting, with the following text ssuperimposed uperimposed
14
on-screen: “And this was true on M May ay 22, 2012, when Inglewood’s crooked Mayor,
15
James T. Butts Jr., tried to set up an alibi ffor or his repeatedly helping violate State law
16
to hide evidence o off serious Polic Policee Misconduct.” Ex. A-1 at 00:06-00: 00:06-00:32. 32. The video
17
annotates Mayor Butts’ remarks about the City’s response to Mr. Teixeira’s public
18
records request for information about an incident of alleged police misconduct,
19
constantly cutting in with original text commenting on the substance of the Mayor’s
20
speech as well as his body language (per the video’s thesis statement about trying ng to hide something). Id. at 00:32-03:13 00:32-03:13.. 21 politicians giving visual tells when tryi Video Four: https://www.youtu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5VQZrW7BVY be.com/watch?v=-5VQZrW7BVY
22
●
23
Video Four is titled “James T. Butts Jr. exploits the Murder of Fredrick Martin
24
for his own political benefit.” Teixeira Decl. ¶ 3(d); Ex. A A-4 -4 (video); B-4
25
(screenshot). The 15-minute video contrasts statements Mayor Butts mad madee at a 2012
Martin’s killers would be 26 press conference, in which he assured the public that Mr. Martin’s 27
caught, and appeared to endorse a “series of reward offerings” for that purpose, with
28
the Mayor’s comments at a subsequent Council meeting casting doubt on whether 6 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:60
1
such rewards are effective and whether whether such crimes are likely to be be solved. Ex. A-4.
2
The meeting clips used in this video are very short and heavily modified, such that no
3
more than three seconds ever goes goes by without origin original al on-screen annotation annotation.. Id. at
4
05:59-14:57. Through such observations, Mr. Teixeira accuses Mayor Butts of using using
5
the murder of Mr. Martin to grandstand grandstand for his own politi political cal gain. Id. Video Five: https://www.you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZKTiut tube.com/watch?v=MZKTiutCjdI CjdI
6
●
7
Video Five is titled “Mayor James Butts Lies About Being a Hypocrite.”
8
Teixeira Decl. ¶ 3(e); Ex. A-5 (video); (video); B-5 (screenshot). The 11-minute, 38-second
9
video revisits the controversy regarding Mayor Butts’ residency at the time of his
10
election that was also addressed in Video One and Video Two, this time focusing on
11
remarks that the Mayor made about the issue during the 4/23/2013 Council meeting.
12
Ex. A-5. It presents more than a dozen short clips of the Mayor addressing addressing criticism
13
about his conduct in connection with the election, and then responds to each of these
and 14 points through original narration, images of public records, superimposed text, and 15
footage of from other official proceedin proceedings. gs. Id. It concludes with an image of tthe he
16
Mayor giving testimony at the 7/20/2010 meeting, with on-screen text and narration
17
saying, “James Butts…hypocrite.” Id. at 11:33-11:38. Video Six: https://www.youtu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1p3l0O be.com/watch?v=a1p3l0OmhGM mhGM
18
●
19
Video Six is titled “Inglewood Mayor James Butts Lies, Hiding Dangerous
20 21
Traffic Problems At The Forum,” or “Mayor James T Butts Jr Lies, Hiding Dangerous Traffic Problems After Forum Event!” Teixeira Decl. ¶ 3(f); Ex. A-6
22
(video); B-6 (screenshot). Most of the 15-minute vide video o consists of original foo footage tage
23
shot by Mr. Teixeira documenting traffic problems near the Forum, a well-known
24
Inglewood event ven venue. ue. Ex. A-6. The video juxtaposes foo footage tage of drivers making
25
illegal turns, nearly getting into accidents, and fighting with traffic officers as local
26
residents complain of major detours, with short clips of Mayor Butts positively
27
characterizing the traffic situation in his remarks at the 2/11/2014 Council meeting.
28
Id. In addition to the the interspersed footage that is in intended tended to contradict the Mayor’s 7 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:61
1
comments by example, the video also criticizes the Mayor’s remarks r emarks directly with
2
on-screen text superimposed over the meeting footage, and narration accusing the
3
Mayor of lying and trying trying to hide the traffic probl problems ems associated with the Forum. Id.
4
III. PLAINTIFF’S COPYRIGHT CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW
5
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
6
Dismissal is warranted if no relief r elief could be granted under any set of facts that could
with the allegations. allegations. See Bell Atlantic Co Corp. rp. v. Twombly, 550 7 be proved consistent with 8
U.S. 544, 563 (2007). In making this determin determination, ation, the court is not req required uired to
9
construe “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences” in favor of the
10
nonmoving party. In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).
11
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider materials referred to
12
in the complaint that form the basis of the claims, but that are not physically attached
13
to the pleading. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
14
(2007) (court deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motion may consider “documents incorporated
15
into the complaint by reference”). See also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076-
16
77 (9th Cir. 2005) (12(b)(6) motion properly granted by considering web pages
17
referred to in the complaint and attached to defendant’s motion).
18 19
Under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, this Court may consider the content of the allegedly infringing videos and the underlying Council meeting videos,
20
as they are referred to in the Complaint at Paragraph 19, and their content forms the 4 1124, 4, 1139 21 basis for the City’s claim. See Zella v. E.W. Scripps, 529 F. Supp. 2d 112 22
(C.D. Cal. 2007) (dismissing copyright infringement claim for failure f ailure to state a claim
of episodes of a television show show incorporated into the 23 based on the court’s review of 24 25 26 27 28
4
A DVD with copies of the allegedly infringing videos is being concurrently submitted as Exhibit A. A. See Notice of Lodging o off DVDs, Ex. A; Teixeira Decl. Decl. ¶ 3. Screenshots of the YouTube pages displaying these videos, also referenced in the Complaint at Paragraph 19, are attached to the Teixeira Declaration as Exhibit B. DVDs with copies of four of the underlying City Council meeting videos are being concurrently as Exhibits Exh ibitsConcurrently C-F. Id. ¶¶ 5-7; Laidman ¶ 2; Notice of Lodging. Seesubmitted also Mr. Tei Teixeira’s xeira’s Filed RequestDecl. For Judicial Judici al Notice. 8 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:62
Century ry Fox Film Corp., 491 F. Supp. 1 pleadings by reference); Burnett v. Twentieth Centu 2
2d 962, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion by considering content
3
of television program referenced in, but not attached to, plaintiff’s complaint for
4
copyright infringement); see also Daly v. Viacom, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121-
5
22 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (considering content of television programs incorporated by
6
reference into complaint in dismissing claims under Rule 12(b)(6)). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s claim against Mr. Teixeira is legally deficient
7 8
and should be dismissed with prejudice for several independent reasons.
9
A.
10
The City Has No Copyright Interest In Its Public Meeting Videos.
As a threshold matter, Inglewood’s claim fails because its video recordings of
11
its City Council meetings are not subject to copyright protection under California
12
law. While the Copyright A Act ct precludes the federal governm government ent from copyrighting
13
its works, it is silent as to to the works of state and local government. 17 U.S.C. § 105.
14
Consequently, “[s]tate law ‘determines whether [a public official] may claim a
15
copyright in his office’s creations,’” and “‘[e]ach state s tate may determine whether the
16
works of its government entities entities may be copyrighted.’” County of Santa Clara v.
17
Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1331 (2009) (quoting Microdecisions, Inc.
18
v. Skinner, 889 So.2d 871, 875-76 (2004)). See also Building Officia Officials ls & Code
19
Adm. v. Code Technology, Inc., 628 F.2d 730, 735-36 (1st Cir. 1980) (“[w]orks of
20 21
state governments are therefore left available for copyright protection by the state or the individual author, depending on state law and policy, and subject to exceptions
22
dictated by public policy…”) (emphasis added; quotation omitted).
23
As explained by one copyright treatise, “[s]tates may, of course, refuse to
24 permit assertion of copyright in state-created works; copyright is never imposed.” 4 25
William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 4:81 (2015). See also 1 Melville B. N Nimmer immer
26
& David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 5.14 (2014) (whether works of state and
27
local government can be copyrighted is determined by “[t]urning to state law itself”).
28
9 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:63
1
Here, California law precludes the City from asserting copyright protection to restrict
2
the use of its video recordings of City Council meetings.
3
1.
The City Cannot Copyright Its Public Meeting Videos Because
4
California Law Does Not Specifically Authorize Such Protection.
5
The Complaint identifies no authority – and Mr. Teixeira is aware of none –
6
that authorizes the City to assert a copyright interest in what it concedes are public
7
records documenting public public meetings by its legisla legislative tive body. The only published
8
authority to address this issue squarely held that California governmental agencies
9
cannot assert copyright protection to restrict the use of such public records unless
10
state law provides “an affirmative grant of authority to obtain and hold copyrights.”
11
County of Santa Clara, 170 Cal. App. 4th at 1333 (original emphasis).
12
In County of Santa Clara, after the trial court ordered the disclosure of a
13
geographic information system (“GIS”) “basemap” under the California Public
14
Records Act (“CPRA”), the County argued that even if disclosure was required, it
15
held a copyright interest that allowed it to restrict the requester’s use of the basemap
16
through a licensing agreement agreement.. Id. at 13 1309. 09. The Court of Appeal rejected this
17
argument and concluded that the County had no express authority for copyrighting
18
the basemap, and thus “unrestricted disclosure [was] required.” required.” Id. at 1335.
19
The court recognized at the outset that a public agency’s assertion ass ertion of copyright
20 protection restricts the public’s public’s access to government information, information, and under the state state construed.” Id. at 1332 (citing 21 Constitution, “restrictions on disclosure are narrowly construed.” 22
Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. subd. (b)). California law does not contain an exception
limit the disclosure or dissemina dissemination tion of public records based 23 permitting agencies to limit 24
on copyright law, and only a single provision of the CPRA addresses copyright at all.
25
Id. at 1332. That provision, Cal. G Gov’t ov’t Code § 6254.9, “ack “acknowledge[s] nowledge[s] copyright
only,” and “recognizes the availability of copy copyright right protection 26 protection for software only,” 27 28
10 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:64
1
for software in a proper case,” but “provides no statutory authority for asserting any
2
other copyright interest.” Id. at 1334 (emphasis added).
5
3
The court also emphasized two distinctive features of the CPRA: (1) it “does
4
not allow limitations on access to a public record based upon the purpose for which
5
the record is being requested”; and (2) agencies are generally limited to charging no
6
more than the “direct costs of duplication” when providing copies of public records.
7
Id. at 1335 (citing Cal. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 625 6253(b); 3(b); 6257.5). The court favorably cited a
8
Florida appellate decision which held that a similar provision in Florida’s public
9
records law “overrides a governmental agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its
10
work unless the legislature legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption exemption.” .” Id.
11
at 1335 (quoting Microdecisions, Microdecisions, 889 So.2d at 876). “The same persuasive reasoning
12
applies to the interplay between copyright law and California’s public records law,
13
with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required.” Id. (emphasis added added). ).
14
The court in County of Santa Clara bolstered its reasoning by noting that the
15
“Legislature knows how to explicitly authorize public bodies to secure copyrights
16
when it means to do so.” Id. at 1 1333. 333. It cited ex examples amples of C California alifornia statutes that
17
expressly authorize certain agencies to secure copyrights in particular enumerated
18
works, including Education Code §§ 1044, 35170, 72207 (authorizing county boards
19
of education, school district boards, and community college district boards to secure
20
copyrights), Health & Safety Code § 25201.11 (authorizing Department of Toxic Substances Control to secure copyrights in certain works, including “video
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5
In contrast to California’s public records law, which contains no exception for copyright, the public records laws of several s everal other states expressly authorize agencies to obtain and and hold copyrights. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24–72–203(4) authorized to obtain and (Colorado “political subdivisions are here by specifically authorized enforce” copyrights); Nevada Rev. Stat. § 239.010(1) (Nevada public records law expressly “does not supersede or in any manner affect the federal laws governing copyrights”); South Dakota Codified Laws § 1–27–1 (copies of public records available “unless federal copyright law otherwise provides”); Utah Code § 63G–2– 201(10)(b) (Utah public law provision specifically “rights or protections granted to the therecords governmental entity under federalreserving copyright … llaw”). aw”). 11 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:65
1
recordings”), and Health & Safety Code § 13159.8 (State Fire Marshal authorized to
2
copyright promotional examinations). Id.
3
6
That the Legislature has explicitly granted certain state and local agencies the
4
authority to secure copyrights in certain items necessarily leads to the conclusion that
5
the default rule is that California public agencies cannot obtain and hold copyrights
6
without such express authorizatio authorization. n. Id.; See also Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange,
7
Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 717, 727 (2011) (“failure to include a requirement in one statute is
8
significant when the legislative body has included that requirement in other
9
statutes”). If public agencies such as the City of Inglewood co could uld assert copyright
public records absent such aut authority hority then all of the these se statutes 10 protection in their public 11
would be redundant. See United States v. Vidal, Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072, 10 1081 81 (9th Cir. 2007)
12
(en banc) (“legislative enactments should not be construed to render their provisions
13
mere surplusage”; interpreting California statute accordingly) (quotation omitted).
14
Applying these principles, the court in County of Santa Clara held that because
15
the County could not identify any statute specifically authorizing it to copyright the
16
GIS basemap at issue or to condition its release on a licensing agreement, it “must be
17
disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without any such conditions or llimitations.” imitations.” Id.
18
at 1335-36 (emphasis added). added). Likewise, here the City of Ingle Inglewood wood has not
19
identified any statute authorizing it to secure a copyright in its City Council meeting
20
videos – because none exists – and therefore California law “overrides [its] ability to claim a copyright in its work,” and “unrestricted disclosure disclosure is required.” Id.
21 22
2.
The City’s Assertion Of Copyright In Its Public Meeting Videos Is
23
Incompatible With Well-Established Well-Established State Law And Public Policy.
24
Inglewood’s argument for copyright protection is actually far weaker than the
25
one at issue in County of Santa Clara, in which the County sought to copyright GIS
26 27 28
6
See also Health & Safety Code § 130251.15 (California Health and Human Services Agency authorized to copyright certain documents). 12 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:66
1 basemaps. Here, Inglewood is asserting copyright to block its citizen’s use of City 2
Council meeting videos videos to comment on governmen governmental tal affairs. While the Brown Act
3
and CPRA do not explicitly address the issue of copyright (except as noted above),
4
they embody a state public policy that strongly favors the broadest possible access to
City Council meeting vi videos deos that go to 5 public records – especially public records like City 6
the very heart of democratic self-governance – and they are plainly incompatible
7
with the City’s attempted assertion of copyright protection to limit public access.
8
The City of Inglewood conducts and records its Council meetings pursuant to
9
the Brown Act, which mandates that “[a]ny audio or video recording of an open and
whatever purpose by or at the the direction of the local agency 10 public meeting made for whatever 11
shall be subject to inspection inspection pursuant to th thee California Public Records Act.” Act.” Cal.
12
Gov’t Code § 54953.5(b). 54953.5(b). It also requires that members of the publ public ic be permitted to
13
view public meeting videos “without charge on equipment made available by the
14
local agency.” Id. As public meeting vid videos eos are pu public blic records subject to disclosure
15
under the CPRA, public agencies such as the City are restricted from charging
16
members of the public who request copies of these videos more than the “direct costs
17
of duplication.” duplication.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 6253(b). See also N North orth County Parents Org. v v..
18
Dep’t of Education, 23 Cal. App. 4th 144, 147 (1994) (under ( under the CPRA “the cost
19
chargeable … for furnishing” copies of public records “is the cost of copying them”; 7
20 21
the Legislature specified “that the sole charge should be that for duplication”). These provisions are core features of a constitutional and statutory scheme that
22
“maximizes the public’s public’s access to information.” information.” Sierra Club v. Sup Superior erior Court, 57
23
Cal. 4th 157, 175 (2013). With respect to the CPRA, “[m]aximu “[m]aximum m disclosure of the
24 25 26 27 28
7
As the City is barred from making any money ffrom rom providing copies of these videos, it has no need for the commercial incentive to engage in creative activity that copyright law is designed designed to provide. See New Era Publications International, International, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., 695 F. Supp. 1493, 1526 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (“[i]t is important to recognize that the justification of the copyright law is the protection of the commercial of the artist/au artist/author. thor. It is notitstorewards.”) coddle artistic vanity or to p protect rotect secrecy, but interest to stimulate creation by protecting (original emphasis). 13 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:67
1
conduct of governmental governmental operations was to be p promoted romoted by the Act.” CBS, Inc. v.
2
Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646, 646, 651-52 (1986). Meanwhile, the Brown A Act ct was intended “to
3
facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking,” and
4
must be “construed liberally in favo favorr of openness.” International Longshoremen’s Longshoremen’s &
5
Warehousemen’s Union v. L.A. Export Terminal, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th 287, 293-94
6
(1999). The Brown Act opens w with ith a sweeping declaration of the law’s intent:
7
[T]he public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies
8
in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business … The people
9
of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them …
10
The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over
11
the instruments they have created.
12
Cal. Gov’t Code § 54950 54950 (emphasis added). Voters enshrined the right o off access to
13 public meetings and records in the state Constituti Constitution on by approving Propositi Proposition on 59 in 8
14
2004. See Sierra Club, 57 Cal. 4th at 166 (citing Cal. Const Const.. Art. 1, § 3(b)(1)-(2)).
15
Because the California Constitution, Brown Act, and CPRA maximize access
16
to public records so that citizens can scrutinize the actions of the governmental
17
agencies that they control, these constitutional and statutory requirements cannot be
18
reconciled with the City of Inglewood’s unprecedented effort to limit the public’s
19
access to records of City Council meetings through copyright.
9
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8
Tellingly, when the state Constitution was amended to incorporate the right of access it expressly included exceptions for the right of privacy and the pre-existing enumerated CPRA exemptions, exemptions, but not for copyright. See Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 3. 9
The City’s attempt to copyright video recordings of the official proceedings of its legislative body also runs afoul of more than a century of law making clear that “judicial opinions and statutes are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright.” Building O Officials, fficials, 628 F.2d at 734. See also Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U U.S. .S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). This line of authority recognizes that “citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.” Building atrecords 734 (quotation omitted). City Council meeti meeting ng videos at Officials, issue here628 are F.2d public public memorializing thisThe “democratic “democratic process.” Id. 14 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:68
1
B.
Mr. Teixeira’s Use Of Clips From City Council Meetings In His Political
2
Commentaries Is Independently Protected Protected By The Fair Use Doctrine.
3
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the City could claim a copyright
4
interest in its recordings of public meetings, its claim is independently barred by the
5
fair use doctrine. See 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Cop (Copyright yright Act provides that “the fair use of a
6
copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting …
7
is not an infringement of of copyright”). Fair use balances “the interests of authors authors …
8
in the control and exploitation of their [works] … on the one hand, and society’s
9
competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other
10 11 12 13
hand[.]” Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 417, 429 (1984). 1.
Fair Use Is Applied Expansively Where, As Here, A Claim Implicates Constitutionally Protected Political Speech.
First Amendment protections are “embodied” “embodied” in the fair use doctrine. doctrine. Golan v.
14
Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 873, 890 (2012). The “‘considerable latitude for scho scholarship larship and
15
comment’ secured by the fair use doctrine protects the core value of free expression
16
from excessive litigation and and undue restriction.” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ravens Ltd.
17
Partnership, 737 F.3d 932, 944 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S.
18
186, 220 (2003)). The “breadth of fair use varies and where vital First Amendment
19
concerns are implicated … that breadth expands and accords greater protection to
20
what might otherwise otherwise constitute an infringement.” Wojnarowicz v. American American Family Association, 745 F. Supp. 130, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
21 22
Here, the City’s copyright claim directly targets Mr. Teixeira’s exercise of
that lies at the very heart of the the First Amendment. As the Supreme 23 political speech that 24
Court has explained:
25
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment,
26
there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that
27
Amendment was to protect the free discussion of gov governmental ernmental affairs. This
28
of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of 15 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:69
1
government, the manner in which government is operated or should be
2
operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.
3
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218-19 (1966). As the City’s claim targets Mr.
4
Teixeira’s use of public records of City Council meetings to discuss governmental
5
affairs and criticize elected officials, “vital First Amendment concerns are
6
implicated,” requiring the broadest possible application of the fair use doctrine.
7
Wojnarowicz, 745 F. Supp. at 147.
8
2.
9
The Ninth Circuit has held that an “assertion of fair use may be considered on
Fair Use May Be Decided On A Motion To Dismiss.
10
a motion to dismiss,” where it does not require the resolution of any disputed issues
11
of material fact. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 530 530 (9th Cir.
12
2008). Accordingly, courts rout routinely inely dismiss copyright cla claims ims at the pleading stage
13
where, as here, they can find fair f air use simply by reviewing the allegedly infringing
14
works, which are incorporated incorporated by reference into the complaint. In Burnett, for
15
example, the court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss comedienne Carol
16
Burnett’s copyright claim stemming from a “crude” parody of her Charwoman
17
character on the television series “Family Guy.” 491 F. Supp. 2d at 971-972. After
18
reviewing the episode in question, the court determined that the use of Burnett’s
19
work was a fair use as a matter of of law and dismissed her claim. Id. at 972.
20 21
Similarly, in Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60545; 87 U.S.P.Q.2D 1730 (N.D. Cal. 2008), the court held that a
22
civil-liberties organization’s posting of a segment from the plaintiff’s radio r adio show on
23
its website in order to criticize his anti-Muslim views and to encourage advertisers to
10
protected as a fair use, and granted the defendant’s Rule 24 boycott his program was protected 25 26 27 28
10
See also Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Moral Majority Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[i]f there are no genuine issues of material fact, or if, even after resolving all issues in favor of the opposing party, a reasonable trier of ffact act can reach onlyqualifies one conclusion, court may conclude aswork”). a matter of law whether the challenged use as a fair ause of the copyrighted 16 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:70
1
12(c) motion. motion. Id. at *25. See also Sedgwick Claims Managemen Managementt Servs. v.
2
Delsman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61825, at *20-21 (N.D. ( N.D. Cal. July 17, 2009) (finding
3
as matter of law that defendant’s use of two photographs of “WANTED” posters on
granting motion to 4 blog as part of a critical commentary was protected fair use; granting 5
dismiss copyright-infringement claim); Righthaven v. Realty One Group, 2010 WL
6
4115413, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010) (granting defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
7
dismiss copyright action based on fair use defense).
8
In Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012),
9
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal at the pleading stage of a copyright claim
that it was an “obvious “obvious case of fair use.” Id. at 692. Because the 10 based on a finding that 11
allegedly infringing video was incorporated by reference into the pleadings, the court
12
could “decide the merits of the claim without discovery or a trial” simply by viewing
13
the works themselves. Id. See also Cario Cariou u v. Prince Prince,, 714 F.3d 694, 707 (2d Cir.
14
2013) (explaining that the court in Brownmark “rejected the appellant’s argument
15
that copyright infringement claims cannot be disposed of at the motion-to-dismiss
16
stage”; holding that 25 works of art were “transformative as a matter of law” and
17 protected by fair use based on court’s review of the works themselves). Similarly, 18
this is also an “obvious case of fair use,” which the Court can decide by reviewing
19
the videos, the Complaint, and other materials incorporated by reference therein,
20
without having to resolve any disputed factua factuall issues. Brownmark, 682 F.3d at 6 692. 92. 3. Each Statutory Factor Strongly Favors Fair Use.
21 22
Congress identified four non-exclusive factors to consider in determining
23
whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a fair use: (1) ( 1) the purpose and
24
character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
25
nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the
26
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
27
whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
28
copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107(1)-(4). These factors must be considered 17 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:71
1
together, and none may be “treated in isolatio isolation.” n.” Campbell, 51 510 0 U.S. at 578. As no
2
single factor is dispositive, “the moving party is not required r equired to prevail on every
3
factor” to establish fair use, Norse v. Henry Holt and Co., 847 F. Supp. 142, 145
4
(N.D. Cal. 1994), and “need not ‘shut out’ her opponent on the four factor tally to
2d d 731, 740 (2d Cir. 1991). 1991). Here, it is 5 prevail.” Wright v. Warner Books, 953 F. 2 6
clear from the videos themselves that each factor strongly favors fair use. a.
7 8
The Purpose And Character Of The Use
Courts have recognized that “criticism of, and commentary on, [a] [ a] plaintiff’s
envisions visions as a paradigmatic fair use.” use.” 9 politics … is precisely what the Copyright Act en 10
Dhillon v. Does 1-10, 1-10, 2014 WL 722592, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014 2014). ). In Hustler,
11
after the magazine published a parody ad describing the Rev. Jerry J erry Falwell
12
committing incest with his mother in an outhouse, Falwell displayed the piece on his
13
TV show, and the political lobbying group Moral Majority used it as a fundraising
14
mailer. 796 F.2d 1148 at 1149-50. Hustler sued them for copyright infringement,
Court held that the cl claim aim was barred by the fair use doctrine, and the 15 but the District Court acknowledged d that the defendants 16 Ninth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 1149. The court acknowledge 17
used the Hustler piece in its entirety to solicit s olicit donations, and the use of the parody ad
18
on Falwell’s TV show “was also also motivated by financia financiall purposes.” Id. at 1152.
court held that this factor favored a finding finding of fair use because the the 19 Nonetheless, the court 20 21
defendants “also used the copies to rebut the personal attack upon Falwell and make 11 a political comment comment about porno pornography.” graphy.” Id. at 1153 1153..
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11
If this action proceeds, Mr. Teixeira will show that his political commentary videos are entirely non-commercial. Nonetheless, for purposes purposes of this Mo Motion, tion, the Hustler case makes clear that this factor favors fair use even taking as true the City’s completely baseless assertion that he is somehow using City Council meeting clips to “generate income.” Cmplt. ¶ 17. See also Cam Campbell, pbell, 510 U.S. at 579 (“the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use”); Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp., 724 F.2d F .2d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[a]lthough the purpose of [the] use undoubtedly is commercial, this fact alone does not defeat by a fair use defense. Almost that all newspapers, bo books oks and nmagazines published commercial enterprises enterprises seek a profit.”) (citatio (citation omitted). are 18 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:72
1
Likewise, in National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Handgun Control Federation
2
of Ohio, 15 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 1994), the Sixth Circuit held that fair use protected a
3
gun control group’s use of part of an NRA newsletter in its own publication that
4
supported legislation legislation that the NRA opposed. Id. at 56 560. 0. The court rea reasoned soned that the
5
“document was used primarily in exercising [the defendant’s] First Amendment
6
speech rights to comment on public issues and to petition the government regarding
7
legislation,” and the “scope of the fair use doctrine is wider when the use relates to
8
issues of public public concern. concern.”” Id. at 562. 562. And in Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mt. Prods., 353
9
F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit held that the first fair use ffactor actor
10
“weighs heavily in favor of” an artist who used the plaintiff’s copyrighted Barbie
11
dolls in photographs that expressed “social criticism” of “Barbie’s influence on
12
gender roles and the position of women in soci society.” ety.” Id. at 802.12
13
As in these cases, the first factor weighs heavily in favor of fair use here
activity ty by using portions 14 because Mr. Teixeira is engaged in core First Amendment activi 15
of the City Council meeting videos to criticize City officials and comment on matters
16
of public interest. See Exs. A-1-A-6; Section III.B.1, supra. In particular:
17
Video One, Video Two, and Video Five concern Mayor Butts’ qualifications
●
18
for office, focusing on a controversy surrounding his residency at the time of the
19
2010 mayoral election. See Exs. A-1, A-2, A-5. Each video uses clips from City
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
12
See also Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253, 1260 (2d Cir. 1986) (fair use protected anti-abortion author’s use of portions of book “to make the case against abortion”); Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1050 (W.D. Wis. 2013) (use of mayor’s photo on t-shirt for “political critique”); Caner v. Autry, 16 F. Supp. 3d 689, 710 (W.D. ( W.D. Va. 2014) (using video “for the transformative purpose of criticizing Plaintiff”); Plaintiff”); Dhillon, 2014 WL 722592, 722592, at *5 (use of p photo hoto on website “in connection with an article criticizing the plaintiff’s political views”); Wojnarowicz, 745 F. Supp. at 147 (use of plaintiff’s artwork in a pamphlet designed “to stop public funding by the NEA of art ar t works such as plaintiff’s”); Sedgwick, S edgwick, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61825, at *15 (use of plaintiff’s photographs as “a vehicle for publicizing and criticizing criticizing [plaintiff’s] alleged business business practices”); Savage, 2008 2008 plaintiff’s U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60545, on at *15-16 (usestatements of audio of to criticize and comment plaintiff’s and views”).radio show “in order 19 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:73
1
Council meetings to criticize Mayor Butts’ statements and conduct in connection
2
with this political controversy, including his conduct at th these ese meetings. Id.
3
Video Three uses clips from f rom a Council meeting to criticize the City’s
●
4
response to Mr. Teixeira’s CPRA request about alleged police misconduct by
5
scrutinizing the Mayor’s remarks and and conduct at this Council Council meeting. See Ex. A-3.
6
Video Four juxtaposes the Mayor’s comments at a press conference about a
●
7
murder with his later comments on the matter at a City Council meeting in order to
8
accuse the Mayor of exploiting exploiting the case for his pol political itical benefit. See Ex. A-4.
9
Video Six concerns dangerous traffic problems in the neighborhood
●
10
surrounding the Forum, and it uses brief clips from Council meetings to criticize and
11
evaluate Mayor Butts’ position position and comments on th thee traffic issue. See Ex. A-6.
12
Mr. Teixeira’s use of the meeting footage footage is also highly transformative. In all
13
six videos, the clips are heavily modified with his original narration and on-screen
14
text, and juxtaposed with other material to emphasize Mr. Teixeira’s political
15
critiques of the Mayo Mayor. r. Exs. A-1-A-6. In this respect, this Court’s decision in
Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Center for Bio-Ethical Bio-Ethical Reform, 868 F. 16 Northland Family Planning 17
Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. Cal. 2012), is on point point.. There, the defendant took verbatim
plaintiff’s video, which was aimed at de-stigmatizing abortion, and 18 portions of the plaintiff’s 19
spliced them together with graphic images and anti-abortion messages, among other
20
alterations. Id. at 966-67. “The new background soun soundtrack, dtrack, the visuals, and the the new video clips w with ith the original creates an entirely different 21 juxtaposition of the 22 23
impact on the viewe viewer. r. Thus, the accused Vid Videos eos are transformative.” Id. at 978. There can be no question from even the briefest review of Mr. Teixeira’s
24
critical political documentaries that they similarly transform the City’s unadorned
25
Council meeting videos into completely different works with an “entirely different
26
impact on the viewer.” Id. As “the g goal oal of co copyright pyright … is generally furthered by the
27
creation of transformative works” such as these, they “lie at the heart of the ffair air use
28
20 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:74
1
doctrine’s guarantee of breathing breathing space within the confines of copyright.” Campbell,
2
510 U.S. at 579. Consequently, this factor factor strongly favors a finding of fair use. use.
3 4
b.
The Nature Of The Allegedly Copyrighted Works
The “scope of fair use is greater when ‘informational’ as opposed to more
5
‘creative’ works are involved,” Hustler, 796 F.2d at 1153-54, as the “law generally
6
recognizes a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or
7
fantasy.” Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nati Nation on Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 539, 563
8
(1985). See also Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bl Bloomberg oomberg L.P., 756
9
F.3d 73, 89 (2d Cir. 2014) (factor favored fair use where plaintiff’s copyright in a
10
financial earnings telephone call was “at best thin” as “the call’s sole purpose was to
11
convey financial information”). information”). Here, the underlying w works orks are the City’s videos of
12
its City Council meetings, virtually all of which are basic, unadorned presentations of
13
the official proceedings. Cmplt. ¶ 19; Exs. A, C-F; Sectio Section n II, supra. As the C City’s ity’s
14
copyright in these purely informational works is “at best thin” (assuming it has any
15
copyright interest at all), all), this factor favors fair use. Swatch Group, 756 F.3d F.3d at 89.
16 17
c.
The Amount And Substantiality Used
The third factor asks if the use was “reasonable in relation to the purpose of
18
the copying,” as “the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and
19
character of the use.” Campbell, 51 510 0 U.S. at 586-87. As such, it is cclosely losely related to
20 21
the first factor. factor. Id. Thus in Northland, the court held that this factor favored fair u use se even where the defendant used several minutes of plaintiff’s videos “verbatim” in its
22
own works because it did did so to criticize the pl plaintiff aintiff and make a political point. 868
23
F. Supp. 2d at 980-82. As the court explained, the underlying video was “not easy to
24
conjure up in a sound byte or a single image,” and “video … should be afforded af forded
25
greater leeway in determining whether a defendant b borrowed orrowed in excess.” Id. at 981.
26
Similarly, in Savage, the court held that this factor favored fair use where the
27
defendants posted on their website a four minute, thirteen-second audio clip from the
detailed etailed criticism of plaint plaintiff’s iff’s anti28 plaintiff’s two-hour radio show, along with “a d 21 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:75
1
Muslim” views. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60 60545, 545, at *3-4. The amount used “was
2
reasonably necessary to convey the extent of plaintiff’s comments” so that the
3
defendants could “comment on and rebut” them. Id. at * *21. 21. See also Swatch, 756
4
F.3d at 90 (news service’s use of an entire financial earnings call “was reasonable in
5
light of its purpose of disseminating important financial information”).13
6
As in these authorities, here it is readily r eadily apparent from the videos that the
7
amount of City Council meeting footage used by Mr. Teixeira is “reasonable in
8
relation to the purpose” of criticizing City officials’ political positions and conduct at
9
these official proceedings. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586 586-87. -87. The videos present brief
10
clips of the Mayor making statements and taking certain actions at the meetings, and
11
then directly respond to his remarks and conduct through on-screen text, narration,
12
and the juxtaposition juxtaposition of other footage and visual and audio material materials. s. See Exs. A-1-
13
A-6. The videos use a reasonabl reasonablee amount of the footage th that at is necessary to convey
14
the substance of the Mayor’s positions and conduct to facilitate f acilitate Mr. Teixeira’s
15
response. And in any event, tthe he public meeting foo footage tage included in M Mr. r. Teixeira’s
16
works, and in particular the few “verbatim” clips, are ar e extremely brief in relation to
17
the City’s full meeting videos that typically lasted hours:
18
Video One and Video Video Two are both abou aboutt 15 minutes. See Section II, supra.
●
19
They each use clips from the City’s video of the 7/20/2010 Council meeting, which is
20 21
more than four hours and 40 minutes. Id. The longest any meeting clip runs in either Video One or Video Two without some sort of audio or visual modification is 40
22
seconds; the next longest is about 15 seconds, and most of the unmodified clips are
23
10 seconds or less. See Exs. A-1-A-2.
24 13
In the closely analogous context of parody, courts “have consistently held that a parody entitles its creator under the fair use doctrine to more extensive use of the copied work than than is ordinarily allowed[.]” Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 310 26 (2d Cir. 1992). 1992). See also Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, 116 27 (2d Cir. 1998) (third factor has “little, if any, weight against fair use so long as the first and fourth factors favor the parodist … even though the degree of copying of was extensive”). 28 protectable elements was 25
22 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:76
1
Video Three is three minutes and 43 seconds, and it uses clips from f rom the
●
2
5/22/2012 meeting video, video, which lasts more tthan han three hours. See Section II, supra.
3
The longest any meeting video clip runs in Video Three without audio or visual
4
modification is about five seconds. See Ex. A-3.
5
Video Four is 15 minutes. See Section II, supra. The longest any meeting
●
6
video clip runs in Video Three without audio or visual modification is about three
7
seconds. Id.; Ex. A-4.
8 9
14
Video Five is 11 minutes and 38 seconds, and it uses clips from the video of
●
the 4/23/2013 council meeting, which is more than two hours and 42 minutes long,
10
and the 7/20/2010 meeting, which is more th than an four hours and 40 min minutes. utes. See
11
Section II, supra. The longest any meeting v video ideo clip runs in Vid Video eo Five without
12
audio or visual modification modification is about one minut minutee and 13 seconds. See Ex. A-5.
13
Video Six is 15 minutes, and it uses clips from the 2/11/2014 meeting video,
●
14
which is more than two hours and 37 minutes longer. See Section II, supra. The
15
longest any meeting video clip runs in Video Six without audio or visual
16
modification is about 11 seconds. See Ex. A A-6. -6.
17
As Mr. Teixeira’s videos use very brief clips from the City’s lengthy Council
18
meeting videos, and the amount used is reasonable in light of these transformative
19
works’ purpose of political criticism, this factor also favors a finding of fair use.
20 21
d. The Effect On The Market Not only does the fourth fourth factor unequivocally favor fair use, this inquiry
22
exposes the completely baseless nature of this action. First, the City of Inglewood Inglewood
23
cannot seriously claim any economic harm to the market m arket or potential market for its
24 25 26 27 28
14
The City’s allegation that Video Four uses clips from a “4/11/2013” Council meeting appears to be in error, and Mr. Teixeira has not yet been able to obtain the City’s full video recording of the City Council meeting that apparently does appear in Video Four. See Teixeira Decl. ¶ 9. But regardless of the precise length of the underlying City Council meeting video, the third factor clearly favors fair use with respect to Video Four as a matter of law as the clips that it uses are extremely brief and reasonable in length in light of the highly transformative purpose of the work. 23 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:77
1
City Council meeting videos because there can be no such market as a matter of law.
2
Because the City is legally prohibited from making money from the distribution of
3
these videos, there can be be no “market” harmed by M Mr. r. Teixeira’s use. See discussion
4
supra at Section III.A; Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6253(b), 54953.5(b).
5
Second, Mr. Teixeira’s highly transformative videos, offering harsh political
6
critiques with titles like “Lying Politicians” and “James T. Butts Jr. exploits the
7
Murder of Fredrick Martin for his own political benefit,” are obviously no substitute
8
for the City’s unvarnished recordings of its public meetings. meetings. Compare Exs. A-1-A-6,
9
with Exs. C-F. As the Ninth Circuit explained in finding that the parody “When
10
Sonny Sniffs Glue” made fair use of the 1950s standard “When Sunny Gets Blue,”
11
this is “not a case in which commercial substitution is likely” because the “two works
12
do not fulfill the same demand.” Fisher, 794 F.2d at 438. See also Seltzer v. G Green reen
13
Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013) (“there is no reasonable argument that
14
conduct of the sort engaged in by [defendant] is a substitute for the primary market
15
for [plaintiff’s] art”); Kienitz, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 1054 (shirts mockingly using
16
mayor’s image “were not a substitute for and did not reduce the demand for”
17
straightforward portrait of the politician; “Anyone seeking a photographic portrait—
18
or even just an accurate representative image—of the mayor would not even consider
19
the garish image of the mayor splashed onto defendants’ … shirts.”).
20 21
Third, with no conceivable economic harm, the City is transparently bringing this action because because it finds Mr. Teixeira’s criticism offensive offensive.. But “[i]t is not
22
relevant that a use may damage damage the original’s value through through criticism.” Northland,
23
868 F. Supp. 2d at 982. 982. “Biting criticism suppresses demand; demand; copyright infringement
24
usurps it,” and therefore for purposes of the fourth factor, “critical impact must be
25
excluded.” Fisher, 794 F.2d at 4 437-48. 37-48. See also Savage, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26
60545, at *24 (fourth factor “strongly favor[ed]” defendants where “the effect of
27
defendants’ usage is limited to the public criticism and condemnation of the ideas
28
within the original work, not market damage in the economic sense”). 24 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/17/15 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:78
1
Because Mr. Teixeira’s “biting criticism” of City officials’ comments and
2
conduct in the City Council meeting videos is no substitute for the original works,
3
which can have no commercial market as a matter of law, this factor weighs strongly
4
in favor of fair use, as do all of of the statutory factors. Fisher, 794 F.2d at 438.
5 6
IV.
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
A claim should be dismissed with prejudice where “any amendment would be
7
an exercise in futility.” futility.” Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 1293, 129 1298 8 (9th Cir.
8
1998). This is just such an instance: because the underlying work workss are not subject to
9
copyright protection as a matter of law, no amendment could cure the legal defects in
10
the City’s Complaint. See Section III.A, supra. And where, as here, it is ap apparent parent
11
from reviewing the allegedly infringing works themselves that they are obvious
12
examples of fair use, courts have not hesitated to dismiss copyright claims at the
without leave to amend. See, e.g., Burnett, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 971-72 13 pleading stage without 14
(granting motion to dismiss without leave to amend because factors “weigh strongly
15
in favor of a finding of fair use” and “plaintiffs could not allege any additional facts
16
which might cure defects in the complaint”); Savage, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60545,
17
at *25-26 (same); Sedgwick, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61825, at *20-21 (same). V.
18 19 20 21 22 23
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Teixeira respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the City’s Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. DATED: April 16, 2015 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE DAN LAIDMAN DIANA PALACIOS
24
By: /s/ Dan Laidman Dan Laidman
25 26
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Teixeira
27 28
25 MOTION TO DISMISS DWT 26446988v5 0200856-000001
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899
