United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 including its subsidiaries,defendants YandexLLCand Inc.( internet searchenginesor websitesthathostuser-generatedcontent.Itmanages itsinvestments, owns afamily ofcompanies underthe“Yandex” brand.Itdoesnotitselfownoroperate any all copyrightsatissueinthisactionisnotcontested (Br.10n.5). based internetwebsiteperfect10.com. Forthepurposesofthismotion, Perfect10’sownershipof entertainment products,includingphotographs.Perfect10owns andoperatesthesubscription- G defendants move forpartialsummary judgment. Forthereasonsstatedbelow,motion is YANDEX N.V.,etal., v. PERFECT 10,INC., RANTED Defendant YandexN.V., aDutchholdingcompany headquarteredintheNetherlands, Plaintiff Perfect10,Inc.,aCalifornia 1. In thiscopyrightinfringement actioninvolvingthumbnail images ofnudemodels,

. T Defendants. Plaintiff, HE P FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA ARTIES IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT . I NTRODUCTION S / TATEMENT corporation, createscopyrightedadult SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER No. C12-01521WHA

GRANTING id. at2).Subsidiary

PARTIAL United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 determines whetheragivenimage initssearchindexfitstheuserquery( user searchesforanimage bytypingintext,thesearchengineanalyzestextandthen is adatabaseofallthewordsorimages knowntothesearchengineandtheirlocations.When a image search.When ausertypesinquery,thesearchenginereferencesindex,which largest searchengineworldwide.Itfunctionsasfollows.Ausercanqueryeitherawebor user goesnextafterleaving thesearch-resultspage has alwaysbeenhostedonRussianservers.Yandex.ru doesnotsavedataregardingwherea language websites,whicharenormally hostedoutsideoftheUnitedStates.The yandex.ruindex States.) on ads.(Thisisalsothewaycrawlersworkforpopular searchenginesbasedintheUnited party websitethathoststhefull-sizedimage. Yandex.rualsoallowsuserstoplaceadsandclick can determine which,ifany,thumbnails arehits.Theusercanthenclickthroughtothethird- occurs onitsservers.Itreproducesthumbnail copiesonsearchresultspagessothatthe user finds butratherdistillsandstoressmaller, lower-resolutionthumbnail-sized copies.Thestorage world-wide internetforimages. Itdoesnotcopyandstorefull-sizedcopiesoftheimages it (yandex.com) forninemonths in2012–2013( which hostedthesearchindexforYandexLLC’sinternationalversionofitsengine engines orwebsitesthathostuser-generatedcontent.Itdoes,however,ownserversinNevada, software-development servicestoYandexLLC.Inc.doesnotownoroperateanysearch search engine.SubsidiaryYandexInc.,aDelawa Yandex LLCisaRussiantechnologycompany Theyandex.rusearchengineisRussia’smost popularsearchengineandthefourth Because yandex.ruisaCyrillic-languagesearch engine, ittypicallycrawlsRussian- Yandex.ru’s image searchindexiscompiled by“crawlers”thatperiodicallycanvasthe .YandexLLC’sSearchEngines. A. 1 Yandex.ru. (1) ibid which operatesyandex.ru,Russia’smost popular 2 re corporationlocatedinPaloAlto,provides ). . id. at 3). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 download theimages ithosts. images andsavethem ontheircomputers, andthusdoesnotknowifusersintheUnited States of itsuser-generatedcontentservices,soYandex LLCdoesnotknowifusersright-clickon downloads aregoingto.YandexLLCalsodoesnot services andsoitdoesnotknowwhere—geographicallyuploadsarecoming from or does nottracktheIPaddressesassociatedwithuseruploadsordownloadsonanyofthese for professionals.AlloftheseservicesarehostedentirelyonserverslocatedinRussia.Yandex community similar toShutterfly.Ya.urisablog-hostingservice. Moikrug.ruisasocialnetwork own websites(likeWordpress). Fotiki.ruisaRussian-languagephoto-hosting serviceandonline content. Narod.ruisaRussian-languagesite-hostingservicewhereuserscanbuildandhosttheir hosted inRussialikeyandex.ru.Thiscivilactionwascommenced inMarch2012. physically hostedonserversinRussia).Outsideofthatnine-month window,yandex.com was nine months, betweenJune2012andMarch2013(whereasyandex.ruhasalwaysbeen advertising anywhereonitssite,andwasphysicallyhostedintheUnitedStatesforaperiodof yandex.ru, yandex.com crawlsforinternetcontentusingLatin-alphabetbasedterms, hasno user goesafterleavingtheyandex.com search-resultspage but ratherthumbnail copies.Likeyandex.ru,ya search resultsinthesame manner. Itdoesnotstorefull-sizedcopiesofitsimages onitsserver search results.Likeyandex.ru,itoffersbothanimage searchandawebgeneratesits of yandex.com andyandex.ru” (Dkt.No.88at2). refers tothem collectively as“Yandex”because“theyareinextricably involvedintheoperation against YandexN.V.,Yandex, Inc.,andYandexLLC.Perfect10’sfirst amended complaint .P 2. Yandex LLChostsseveralpopularRussian-languageservicesthathostuser-generated Yandex.com isasearchenginethatprovidesEnglishandotherLatin-alphabetbased Perfect 10hasbroughtdirect,contributory,a .YandexLLC’sUser-GeneratedContentServices. B. ERFECT 2 Yandex.com. (2) 10’ S C LAIMS . ndex.com doesnotsavedataregardingwherea 3 nd vicariouscopyrightinfringement claims track “right-click”useractivitydataonany . Buttherearedifferences.Unlike United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to intheirsearchresults. 63,756 allegedlyinfringing URLswhichPerfect Yandex usedgeo-location toolstoobtainIPa the ownersandhostsofvariouswebsitesthatdisplay allegedlyinfringingPerfect10images. storage media usedtocapturetheimages. Perfect10hasusedgeo-locationtoolstodetermine device islocated.Thisimportant becauselegalliabilityistiedtothelocationof serversand computing devices)whichcanthenusedtodetermine, among otherthings,thecountry in which geo-location tools.Thesesoftwaretoolsobtai uploaded bythird-parties(Br.at6). infringement basedonNarod,Fotki,Ya.ruandMoikrug.ru’shostingofPerfect10images 10 images hosted onthird-partywebsites.Perfect10furthermore asserted1,474actsofdirect identified 63,756URLsfrom Yandexsearchresults and YandexInc. the allegationsof directandcontributory infringing copiesofPerfect10’simages. images; (3)YandexLLC’suser-generatedcontentsitesalloweduserstouploadanddownload Yandex.com linkedtothird-partywebsitesthathos linked tothird-partysitesthathostedfull-sizedinfringingcopiesofPerfect10’simages; (2) 2–3; Opp.5–6). sized versionsoftheimages oftenadjacenttoYandexads(FirstAmd. Compl. ¶¶23–27;Br. copies ofPerfect10images andlinkedthem toYandex-createdpagesthatdisplaysimilar full- infringing Perfect10images; (2)yandex.rua hosting) andfotki.ru(photo-hosting)services During discoveryinthisaction,bothPerfect10andYandexhaveusedwidely-available According todefendants,inaseriesofDMCAnoticessentYandexPerfect10 Perfect 10’s Perfect 10’s Perfect 10’s vicarious contributory direct copyrightinfringement claims areasfollows:(1)narod.ru(site- copyrightinfringement claims againstYandexN.V.arebasedon copyrightinfringement claims areasfollows:(1)Yandex.ru

infringement purportedlycommitted byYandexLLC nd yandex.com hostedinfringingthumbnail-sized hostedfull-sizedcopiesofuser-uploaded ddresses andcorresponding geo-locationsofall n IPaddresses(thenumeral labelsassigned to 4 10 allegedyandex.com and/oryandex.rulinked ted full-sizedinfringingcopiesofPerfect10’s pages linkingtoallegedlyinfringingPerfect United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Yandex userstoNarod.ru,Fotki.ru,Ya.rua 1,474 ofthe51,959URLslocatedoutsideUnitedStatesconcerncontentuploadedby the UnitedStatesand50,485concernedcontenthostedbythird-partywebsites.Theremaining search results,Yandexcontendsthat51,959ofthem werehostedonserverslocatedoutsideof (1986). fact may affecttheoutcome ofthecase. evidence forareasonablefact-findertofindthe non-moving party,andmaterial onlyifthe judgment asamatter oflaw.”FRCP56(a).A that thereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterial fact andthatthemoving partyis entitledto have submitted briefingonthemotion, andoralargument was heldonJuly11,2013. Perfect 10images hostedbyextraterritorial thirdparties;and(4)vicariousliability.Bothparties period in2012–13constitutedfairuse;(3)whetherYandexiscontributorilyliableforlinkingto thumbnail versions ofPerfect10images hostedonserversintheUnitedStatesforanine-month images hostedonYandexserviceslocatedabroadaredirectinfringements; (2)whetherYandex’s Yandex ( States relevanttothe1,474allegedinfringements basedonuser-generatedcontenthostedby States. Furthermore, Perfect10didnotprovide relevant tothelocationof51,959allegedinfringements hostedonserversoutsidetheUnited States. Perfect10didnot,however,produceeviden Perfect 10directedYandextodocuments thatclai the locationofdirectinfringements onwhich of whicharelocatedonserversinRussia( Of the63,756allegedinfringements towhichyandex.com and/oryandex.rulinked in Summary judgment isproperwhenthepleadingsandevidenceinrecord“show Yandex nowmoves forpartialsummary judgment ontheissuesof(1)whetherPerfect10 Yandex serveddiscoveryrequestsaskingPerfect10toproducealldocuments showing id. at 7–8). Anderson v.LibertyLobby, Inc. id. A nd Moikrug.ruaccountshostedbyYandexLLC,all NALYSIS at 7). dispute isgenuineonlyiftheresufficient 5 evidence ofdirectinfringement intheUnited the contributoryandvicariousclaims arebased. med toshowinfringement hostedintheUnited ce ofdirectinfringement intheUnitedStates , 477U.S.242,248–49 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 infringement thattakeplaceentirelyabroad.” as extendingnofartherthantheUnitedStates’borders..[They]donotreachactsof extraterritorially, eachoftherightsconferredunderfivesection106categoriesmust beread Ltd. 2013 WL 71774,at*1(N.D.Cal.Jan7,2013), extraterritorial application. similar sites)commit “directinfringement bydisplay.”AccordingtoPerfect 10, whenitsimages Russia. Rather,Perfect 10 objectsthatFotk order agrees. argues, theseforeign-hostedimages areextraterritorial andnotactionableundertheAct.This direct copyrightinfringement liability. makes thehostingwebsite’s computer, ratherthanthesearchengine’scomputer, thesitusof have alwaysbeen,hostedonserversinRussia.The “servertest”appliedbyourcourtofappeals services.” Yandexarguesthattheevidenceisundisputedtheseservicesare,and uploaded Perfect10images] hostedonYandex’s “premised onthe1,474actsof allegedinfringement Perfect 10,Inc.v.Amazon.com, F.3d 1088,1094,1098(9thCir.1994). , 149F.3d987,990(9thCir.1998).“Becausethecopyrightlawsdonotapply It isawell-establishedprinciplethat,asgeneralrule,theCopyrightActhasno 1. Perfect 10doesnotcontest thattheserversfortheseYandexservicesare locatedin Yandex moves forsummary judgment onPerfect10’s directinfringement claims To presentaprima faciecaseofdirectinfringement, aplaintiff:

D . ServersOutsidetheUnitedStates. A. “fair use”assetforthin17U.S.C.§107. may avoidliabilityif itcanestablishthatitsuseof theimages isa and makes aprima faciecase ofdirectinfringement, thedefendant U.S.C. §106.Evenifaplaintiffsatisfiesthesetworequirements least oneexclusiverightgrantedtocopyrightholdersunder17 and (2)theymust demonstrate thattheallegedinfringersviolateat (1) .must showownershipoftheallegedlyinfringedmaterial IRECT I NFRINGEMENT Minden Pictures,Inc.v.PearsonEduc., , 508F.3d1146,1159(9thCir.2007).

Amazon C LAIM i andNarod.Ru(andpresumably Yandex’sother, Subafilms Ltd.v.MGM-PatheComm’nCo. . citing , 508F.3d 6 narod.ru, fotki.ru,ya.ruandmoikrug.ru concerning user-generatedcontent[i.e.user-

L.A. NewsServ.v.ReutersTelevisionInt’l,

at 1159–60.Therefore,Yandex , No.11-5385-WHA, , 24 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 through cleverplacement of itsserversorthroughmanipulation ofthe corporateform. is thereanyevidenceofaneffortbyYandextointentionally circumvent copyrightliability judgment stage,whichisthepointinlitigationtostandanddeliveronadmissible evidence. Nor full-size image storagemay haveoccurredintheUnitedStatesisinsufficientatsummary servers” (Dkt.No.167at24(citationomitted, emphasis added)).Perfect10’s speculationthat States. merely becausetheimage couldbedownloadedfrom aserverabroadbysomeone intheUnited copyrighted image anywhereintheworldcreatesdirectcopyrightliabilityUnitedStates argument, nowhereinthatdecisiondidourcourtofappealsendorsetheideadisplaya servers .sofull-sizePerfect10images Perfect 10onlysubmits that“Yandexsuggestsitkeepsduplicatecopiesofimages onallofits Perfect 10images storedonYandexserversintheUnitedStateswillbeaddressed below.) Perfect 10images onYandex’sUnitedStatesservers.(Theissueofthumbnail versionsof Perfect 10doesnotdemonstrate thatYandexinfact liability byinternationaldistributionof itshostingandsearchingservers. Yandex serverinRussia.Perfect10argues performed byaserverintheUnitedStates servers werelocatedintheUnitedStatesforanine-month period,aYandex.com image search for worksontheinternet. Russia, butnoevidenceof establishing thataUnitedStatesuser because usersintheUnitedStatescoulddownloadthem. Perfect10suppliesdeclarations are hostedonserverslocatedinRussia,YandexviolatesPerfect10’s“exclusivedisplayright”

It isnotnecessarytoaddressthevalidityofthistheorymerits. Itfailsforlackofproof. In amore plausiblevariationofthisargum This theoryofliabilityisrejected.AlthoughPerfect10cites Such aprinciplewoulddestroytheconceptof actual downloadsintheUnitedStates. could may verywellhavebeen could havelinked downloadPerfect10images from aYandexserverin that Yandexshouldnotescapedirectcopyright 7 ent, Perfect10pointsoutthatwhenYandex’s storedordisplayedfull-sizedcopiesofthe territoriality inherentintheCopyrightAct toaPerfect10image hostedona storedonyandex.com’s U.S. Amazon insupportofits United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the issueshouldbeanalyzedinterms ofwhethertheextraterritorialactsstateaclaim. only mentioned inafootnotetheparties’ br 1353, 1367–68(Fed.Cir.2008).Ourcourtofappeals hasnotruledontheissue,anditis acts stateaclaim forinfringement. jurisdictional innature,orshouldinsteadbeanalyzed interms ofwhethertheextraterritorial infringement. fotki.yandex.ru serversare extraterritorialand issue isoutsidethescope ofYandex’smotion forpartialsummary judgment. Moreover,the on Yandex’sfotki.yandex.ru searchenginear Yandex hasmet itsburden. its thumbnail copiesconstitutedfair use. of directinfringement basedonthesethumbnails. TheburdenthenshiftstoYandexshowthat rights intheseimages. Thus,thisorderassumes thatPerfect10canmake outa proposition thatYandex’suseofthethumbnails vi Perfect 10owned(andownsstill)thecopyrightsinimages itasserts,northebasic Perfect 10images withintheterritorialreachofCopyrightAct.Yandexdoesnotdisputethat Yandex.com serverswerelocatedintheUnitedStates,Yandexstoredthumbnail versionsof extent, Yandex’smotion forpartialsummary judgment is servers inRussiadoesnotconstitutedirectcopyri 2 1 Perfect10devotesasection ofitsoppositiontoarguingthatPerfect10 thumbnails Yandex concedesthatduringthenine-month periodfrom June2012toMarch2013when The fairusedefenseiscodifiedin17U.S.C.107,whichstates: This orderaccordinglyholdsthatYandex’shostingoffull-sizedPerfect10images on There isasplitinauthorityastowhethertheextraterritoriality questionis

. ServersInsidetheUnitedStates. B. educational purposes; such useisofacommercial natureorisfornonprofit (1) thepurposeandcharacterofuse,includingwhether to beconsideredshallinclude— made ofaworkinanyparticularcaseisfairusethefactors infringement ofcopyright.Indetermining whethertheuse copies forclassroom use),scholarship,orresearch,isnotan comment, newsreporting,teaching(includingmultiple reproduction incopies.forpurposessuchascriticism, the fairuseofacopyrightedwork,includingsuchby Notwithstanding theprovisionsofsections106and106A, 2

Litecubes, LLCv.NorthernLightProds.,Inc. See Amazon e notfairuse(Dkt.No.167 at13–14).This 8 iefs. Thisorderassumes withoutdecidingthat therefore notsusceptible ofaclaim ofdirect ght infringement intheUntiedStates.Tothis olated Perfect10’sdisplayanddistribution , 508F.3dat1158.Thisorderholdsthat G RANTED . 1

prima facie , 523F.3d case United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defense doescome intoplay—atleastastothatfull-sizeimage. infringement. appeals expresslyheldthat in-linelinkingtoafull-size image does notconstitutedirect image emanated from Yandex,butthisobjectionfailsforthreereasons. a full-sizeimage ofthenudemodel (whichcame from thethird-party server). screen (whichcame from theUnitedStates-basedserver) servers third-party websitedirectlytotheuser’scomputer—nocopywaseverstoredonyandex.com’s although itappearedasanintegratedpage,thefull-sizeimagewasactuallytransmittedfrom thumbnails, thefull-sizesourceimage appearedinthesame browserwindow. known as“in-linelinking.”When auseroftheyandex.com searchserviceclickedon one ofthe including partsofthesurroundingthird-partywe yandex.com image searchlinkedthethumbnail directlytoa largerversionoftheimage, without artistic expression.” different functionthanPerfect10’suse:“impr information is highlytransformative. Sotoohere.Yandex’sthumbnail versionsserveda appeals foundin and towhatextentthenewworkis‘transformative.’” Soft the same plaintiff,similar facts,anditselfreliedonananalogousfactpatternin , 336F.3d811(9thCir.2003)). . Putdifferently,theuserwouldcontinuetosee the Yandexlogoneartopof It istruethatthisintegratedcomposite screen lefttheimpression thatthenudemodel Perfect 10objectsthat,unliketheGooglesearchfunctionatissuein Regarding thefirstfactor,“[t]hecentralpurpos This orderisguidedbythedecisionofourcourtappealsin Id value ofthecopyrightedwork. (4) theeffectofuseuponpotentialmarket foror relation tothecopyrightedworkasawhole;and (3) theamount andsubstantialityoftheportionusedin (2) thenatureofcopyrightedwork; . at1159–60.Without adirectinfringement ofthefull-size image, thefairuse Amazon Id. at1165. (and Kelly ) thatusingathumbnail image asapointertosourceof oving accesstoinformation ontheInternetversus 9 b page,concentratingitsfireonatechnique e ofthisinquiryistodetermine whether Amazon and would seeontherestofscreen , 508F.3dat1164.Ourcourtof Second Amazon First , whetherabrowser Amazon , ourcourtof (whichinvolved Significantly, Kelly v.Arriba , the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 750,000 queriesfrom U.S.userseachday,or22.5million querieseachmonth.”)). currently comes from theUnitedStates,whichmeans thatyandex.rureceives approximately reached usersintheUnitedStates( Perfect 10’sargument iscontradictedbyitsowneffortstoshow thattheYandex’ssearchservice constrained bywhethertheyprovidedaparticular benefittotheUnitedStates.Moreover, persuasive. provide apublicbenefitfor“Americans” (DktNo.167at10–11).Thisargument isnot search service(whichwasdirectedtowardsEnglish-speakinginternetusersinRussia)didnot thumbnails wastargetedorpretextual. its searchengine.NoristhereanyevidencethatYandex’suseofPerfect10images forits explain theconnectionbetweenitsDMCAnoticesandYandex’sdecisiontousethumbnails in not adducedevidencesubstantiatingitsallegationofbadfaith,andbecausePerfect10failsto from relyingonthefairusedefensegenerally.Thisargument failsbothbecausePerfect10has Yandex hasobjectedtocertainDMCAnotices defense becauseYandexhasactedinbadfaith. with partofthesurroundingwebpage—doesnotaffectwhetheruse window showsonlythethumbnail andthefull-sizeimage —insteadofthefull-sizeimage along advertising onthe Russia) wereusedinconnectionwithadvertising.Thestorageoffull-sizeimages anduseof show thatanyoftheyandex.com thumbnails (asopposedtothumbnails from Yandexservicesin objections arenotsupportedbycompetent evidence.Thesummary judgment recorddoes size versions,thefull-sizeimages weredisplayedbesidecommercial advertising.These an ‘in-linelinkconnectedtoafull-sizeimage,’ thatuseremains highlytransformative. been transformed. Perfect 10attempts todistinguishthisactionfrom Perfect 10nextarguesthatYandexshouldnotbepermitted tobenefitfrom thefairuse Perfect 10alsoobjectsthatwhentheyandex.com thumbnail images in-linelinkedtofull- Amazon yandex.ru Third ’s discussionofthepublicbenefitfrom internetsearchengines wasnot , evenifyandex.com’s useofthethumbnail werebroadlydescribedas website see in Russia Opp.at19(statingthat.5%ofthetraffictoyandex.ru isirrelevanthere. sent byPerfect10,Yandexshouldbeprecluded 10 Specifically, Perfect10contendsthatbecause Amazon byarguingthatYandex’s thumbnail has not United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 links wereactuallyviewed orused. stored inyandex.com’s index andaccessibleontheinternetdoesnotcompel afindingthatthose United Statesduringthat nine-month period. Th were theresultofyandex.com usersclickingonthumbnails storedonyandex.com servers inthe in theUnitedStates).Perfect10doesnot,however, provideevidencethatanyofthoseviews December 2012(whichwaswithinthenine-month periodthatyandex.com serverswere located websites contention consistsofscreenshotsfrom argument isnotsubstantiatedbycompetent evidence.Perfect10’sputativesupportforthis harm becauseYandexprovidesasearchservicethatlinkstothird-partyinfringers.This 12 (emphasis removed)). Putdifferently,Perfect10isarguingthatYandexcausesitmarket and downloadsofitsimages from websitestowhichYandexlinksPerfect10thumbnails” (Opp. transformative. should bepresumed. Inlightof albeit inmuch reducedsize. favors neitherpartybecausetheYandex’stransformative userequiredoftheentireimage, circumvention oftheAct.Asin above, thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatYandex’senterprisewasdedicatedto copyright basis.Thus,thenumber ofallegedly the substantialityanalysis.Itproceeds,likeconceptofinfringement, onacopyright-by- to approximately 1,500usedbyGoogleinthe should favorPerfect10becauseYandexallegedlyused40,000thumbnails, compared Perfect 10.10doesnotdisputethiscontention,andorderagrees. comparable totheimages in Perfect 10nextcontendsthatYandexisre As fortheeffectonmarket fortheoriginal,Perfect10firstcontendsthatmarket harm Regarding thethirdfactor,Perfect10arguesthat“amount andsubstantiality”analysis Regarding thesecondfactor,Yandexarguesthatnatureofcopyrightedworksis leadingtoPerfect10images hadbeenviewedapproximately 3.8million times asof See Amazon , 508F.3dat1168. Amazon See Amazon

Amazon Amazon andinkeepingwiththatdecisionshouldonlyslightlyfavor , thisargument isrejectedbecauseYandex’suse third-party and , 508F.3dat1167–68; Kelly Amazon 11 infringed images isnotrelevant.And,asnoted e simple factthatthethumbnail linkswere sponsible for“billionsofunauthorizedviews , thisorderconcludesthatthethirdfactor websitesshowingthatlinks action.Perfect10confusesthenatureof Kelly , 336F.3dat821. on those United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 thumbnails storedonitsserversintheUnitedStatesforanine-month periodwerefairuse. neutral thirdandfourthfactors.Upondueconsideration, thisorderholdsthatYandex.com’s be weighedagainstthenatureofwork,which weighsslightlyinfavorofPerfect10,andthe the purposesofcopyright.” images. Thisorderthereforeconcludesthatthisfactorfavorsneitherparty. Perfect 10’simage duringanine-month periodhadanyeffectonthemarket forthosesame Perfect 10,Inc.v.Google sworn declarationthatPerfect10’scellphone 10’s market. Significantly,inapriorlitigationagainstGoogle,Perfect 10’s presidentstatedina Yandex’s useof40,000thumbnail images betweenJune2012andMarch2013affected Perfect Yandex. Thissimple correlation,withoutmore, doesnotconstitutesufficientevidence that has beganprovidingathumbnail searchservicesince2007;ergo,Perfect10hasbeenharmed by Perfect 10reasonsthatthemarket forreduced-sizeimages hasdriedupsince2007,andYandex alleged lossofitscellphonedownloadbusinessintheensuingyears,Perfect10criesfoul. 2007, butthattheharm tothismarket washypotheticalatthetime. was amarket forcellphonedownloadsofreduced-sizeversionsPerfect10images backin contributed todirectinfringement byotherswithintheUnitedStates. and considertheclaim ofcontributory infringe subscribed toPerfect10”(Opp.13).Thisisspeculation,notproof. that millions ofYandexusershaveviewedPerfect10images atYandexandnonehave joining perfect10.com aspayingmembers. Perfect10claims thatsuchdata“wouldlikelyshow the yandex.com sitecouldhavebeentrackedbyYandexandthencompared tostatisticsforusers 2. Taking astepback,thisordermust nowcons In sum, thereisnoevidenceintherecordthat Now thisorderwillreturn totheserversoverseas,aswellthosein UnitedStates, Similarly, Perfect10contendsthatin Perfect 10alsotheorizesthatuserviewsofthe40,000thumbnails thatwereon

C ONTRIBUTORY Ibid , No.2:04-cv-9484(C.D.Cal.)(Dkt.438,filedJuly5,2009). I . Asin NFRINGEMENT Amazon Amazon download business“effectivelyendedin2006.” ment, that is,theclaim thatthose servers 12 , Yandex’ssignificanttransformative use must C LAIM ider theabovefactorstogether“inlightof ourcourtofappealsrecognizedthatthere Yandex.com’s . useofthumbnail versionsof Id. at1168.Pointingtothe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 summary judgment onthoselinksfor whichtheextraterritorialsitusisuncontested. to domestic websites,Yandexwithdrewitsmotion astothose23andnowonlyseeks Perfect 10doesnotprovideanyevidencetothecontrary demonstrates thatthethird-partieshosting50,000full-sizedimagesareextraterritorial,and hosted onthird-partywebsites. yandex.ru linksidentifiedinPerfect10’sDMCAno defendant’s serversaslongtheunderlyingdir 12.04[A][3][b], at12-86.Thus,contributoryliabilitycanexistregardlessofthelocation Copyright Actonewhoismerely relatedtothatactivitywithintheUnitedStates.” cognizable undertheCopyrightAct,cannotserveasbasisforholdingliable primary activityoutsidetheboundariesofUnitedStates,notconstitutinganinfringement underlying directinfringement isoccurred. F.3d at1169.Forcontributoryinfringement, theserversthatmatter aretheserverswhere F.3d at1093, infringement bythirdpartiesbecausesecondaryliabilityotherwisecannotexist. U.S. 913,930(2005).Toestablishcontributoryliability,Perfect10must firstestablishdirect infringement.” Perfect 10wasthenotion thattheprerequisitefo 15). Thisinterpretationof assists U.S.usersingainingaccesstotheinfringing materials offeredbythosewebsites”(Opp. links andusertraffictoinfringingwebsitesregardless oftheir‘geographicallocation’becauseit google.com oryandex.com shouldbeheldcontri judgment is links tothem cannotcontributorilyinfringe.Thisorderagrees.Tothisextent,summary size images cannotconstitutedirectinfringement undertheCopyrightAct,andYandex.com 3

Yandex moves forsummary judgment onapproximately 50,000yandex.com and “One infringescontributorilybyinten Perfect 10arguesthatourcourtofappealsheldin Followingthesubmission byPerfect10ofevidencethat 23ofthelinksconnected G quoting RANTED Id. at1169, 3DavidNimmer &Melville B.Nimmer, N . Amazon citing Metro–Goldwyn–MayerStudios,Inc.v.Grokster,Ltd. Using thesamegeo-locationtoolsusedbyPerfect10,Yandex isincorrect.Implicit in thepassagein Asourcourtofappealsstatedin tionally inducingorencouragingdirect 13 ect infringements occurredintheUnitedStates. r contributoryinfringement —anactofdirect butorily liableunderU.S.lawwhenitprovides tices. Thelinksconnecttofull-sizeversions . 3 Amazon Therefore,Yandexargues,thefull- IMMER ON that“asearchenginelike Amazon C Subafilms OPYRIGHT Amazon citedby

Subafilms , “a § , 545 , 508 , 24 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 predicate violation. above) thoseyandex.com thumbnails constitutedfairuse,theydidnotinfringe,andthereisno Yandex’s fairusedefense.Thistheoryofliabilityendswhereitstarts.Because(asexplained United Statesfor ninemonths couldconstitute contributory liability.Forthe50,000linksatissue, could constituteapredicateviolationstillpresupposes 149 F.3d987,991–92(9thCir.1998).Perfect10’s violation. damages forforeigncopyrightviolationsthat copyright liabilitybyfunnelinginternetuserstoPerfect10images. that thereisnoevidenceYandexorhasbeenintentionallyattempting tocircumvent period doesnotchangethecontributoryliabilityanalysis.Again,itmust alsobeemphasized 10’s insistencethattheYandex.com serverswerelocatedintheUnitedStatesforanine-month infringe, andinturntherecanbenocontributoryinfringement. Forthesame reason,Perfect our courtofappealsin infringement intheUnitedStates—wassatisfied. This orderhasalsodetermined thatYandexisnotcontributorily liablebasedonextraterritorial servers intheUnitedStates foranine-month period beyond theterritorialreach oftheCopyrightAc direct infringement. Yandex’swebsitesinRussi 508 F.3dat1173.Likecontributoryliability,vi .V 3. Perfect 10furtherarguesthatthe40,000yandex.com thumbnails thatwerestoredinthe Perfect 10alsoinvokesthepredicateactdoctrine,“wherebyaplaintiffcancollect Amazon Minden direct financialbenefitfrom thedirectinfringement. control overthedirectinfringerandthatdefendant derivesa plaintiff must establishthatthedefendantexercisesrequisite formulation indicates,tosucceedinimposing vicariousliability,a while decliningtoexercisearightstoporlimit it.Asthis One infringesvicariouslybyprof setsoutthetestfor vicariousliability: ICARIOUS , 2013WL 71774 Subafilms L IABILITY : ifthird-partyactivityisextraterritorial,itcannotdirectly

at *1, C LAIM citing aredirectlylinkedtothedomestic copyright . predicate directinfringements, notwithstanding 14 t. Yandex’sthumbnails thatwerestored on carious liabilityrequiresanunderlyingactof iting from directinfringement

a donotdirectlyinfringebecausetheyare L.A. NewsServ.v.ReutersTelevisionInt’l,Ltd. noterritorialdirectinfringement exists. Amazon argument thatacontributoryinfringement did notinfringebecause they werefairuse. aterritorialdirectinfringement tosupport doesnotchangetheviewadoptedby , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that theYandexwebsiteshostimages hosted websites”(Dkt.No.167at19(emphasis adde evidence thatsuchdownloadsoccurred.Ithasnotdoneso. for directorcontributoryliability,atthesummary judgment stagePerfect10must adduce result pertains.Whether theallegedinfringingUnitedStatesdownloadsareanalyzedasabasis infringement, contributoryinfringement, jurisdic 10’s oppositionwhetheritmakes thisargument inthecontextofitsallegationsdirect by presentingevidenceofdownloadsintheUnitedStates”(Opp.17).Itisnotclearfrom Perfect Yandex’s motion forsummary judgment is motion forpartialsummary judgment, therecanbenovicariousliability.Tothisextent, third-party infringement. Thus,fortheseissuesspecificallywithinthescopeofYandex’s any suchdownloadinghas actuallyoccurred. using Yandex’ssearchengine. Thesummary judgment record does notestablish,however,that possible that anyparticularquantityof suchdownloadshaveinfact occurred.Thisorderagreesthatitis its owncopyrights.Nordoanyofthedeclarations risetothelevelofexperttestimony showing part ofitsinvestigationdonotconstitutedirect conclusions herein.Perfect10’sowndownloads (anddownloadsbyitsagents)conductedas process bywhichtheyeachaccomplished thetask.Thesedeclarationsdonotchangeanyof within theUnitedStates.Eachdeclarantconfirms thatthisis“possible”andthenexplainsthe Perfect 10tousevariousYandexservicesdownloadimages tocomputers located graphic designer(Dkt.Nos.167-28–30).Ineachone,thedeclarantstatestheywereaskedby infringement forhostingtheuploadedimages. Perfect 10assertsthatat“least40images werelikely U Finally, Perfect10contendsthatithas“demons 4. Perfect 10submitted declarationsfrom aprivateinvestigator,webdeveloper,and forsomeone intheUnitedStatestodownloadinfringingcopiesofPerfect10images NITED S TATES D OWNLOADS are extraterritorial G RANTED . infringements becausePerfect10cannotinfringe 15 tion, orsomething else.Regardless,thesame d)). Asexplainedabove,itisnotcontested . trated thattheU.S.CopyrightActapplies , whichprecludesdirect uploaded toYandex- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 assertions regardingUnitedStatesdownloadsdo Thus, onthepresentrecord,theyarespeculativeandunsubstantiated.Insum, Perfect10’s ae: Jl 2 03 Dated: July12,2013. proceed totrial. portion of Perfect 10’sclaims for contributoryandvicariousliabilityremain inthecaseandshall ( statistically guaranteesthatdownloadsofPerfect10images .byU.S.usershavetakenplace” will download[copyrighted]images” and“thee G ibid RANTED .). Theseclaims arenotsupportedbyexperttestimony, documents, orotherevidence. IT ISSOORDERED. In itsoppositionbrief,Perfect10claims that“itisaforegoneconclusionU.S.users For thereasonsstatedabove,Yandex’smotion forpartialsummary judgment is . ThisorderdisposesofPerfect10’sdirect C ONCLUSION 16 normous traffictoYandexsearchengines not changeanyoftheconclusionsherein. U W infringement claims intheirentirety.A NITED ILLIAM S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE