One-Man Porn Site Operation Protected by Copyright Safe Harbor

Digital copyright law’s safe harbor protects a one-man porn-clip website operation from infringement claims, according to a federal appeals court.

The operator of Motherless Inc.'s clip site, who took down and banned infringing content himself, qualified for safe harbor under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled March 14.

The DMCA’s safe harbor protects an online service provider from liability for infringement by its users. It also applies if the website operator posts content at the direction of users and complies with a series of obligations, including taking down infringing content when notified and having a policy to remove repeat infringers.

Motherless’ owner, Joshua Lange, didn’t have a written policy on repeat infringers. But the court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Lange’s screening out and removing obviously illegal content, such as infringing material and child pornography, granted him safe harbor protection.

The ruling shows that a content-takedown policy can be legally effective in protecting a website operator from copyright infringement claims, even if the policy isn’t written down. Lange never issued a written policy because he did all the takedowns and bannings himself.

Ventura Content Ltd., a producer of adult-oriented films, sued Motherless for posting more than two dozens of its clips. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants after ruling they were protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor.

In affirming the ruling, the appeals court also rejected Ventura’s argument that Lange, rather than his users, posted the material because Lange screened out the illegal content.

“We find it counterintuitive, to put it mildly, to imagine that Congress intended to deprive a website of the safe harbor because it screened out child pornography and bestiality rather than displaying it,” the court said.

Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld issued the court’s opinion, which was joined by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen. Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson dissented, saying that Ventura had raised a question of fact that the trial court shouldn’t have disposed of at the case’s summary judgment stage.

One LLP represented Ventura. Theodora Oringher PC represented Motherless and Lange.

Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc. , 2018 BL 86688, 9th Cir., No. 13-56970, 3/14/18