The 12 CCB Final Determinations
Though not a partridge in a pear tree or five golden rings for the 12 days of Christmas, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) has gifted the copyright community with 12 final determinations so far and in time for the holiday season. At 18 months old, the CCB is beginning to mature and we are beginning to see the results. We have compiled brief summaries of each determination in one place.
Flores v. Mitrakos: On February 15, 2023, the CCB issued its first final determination in the case ofFlores v. Mitrakos. The claimant alleged that the respondent filed a knowingly false DMCA takedown notice that caused Google to remove materials from the Chrome Web Store. Through the CCB, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included a concession from the respondent that the information in the takedown notice was false and an agreement that the respondent will not file any future false takedown notices or counter-notices related to the claimant. The CCB approved the settlement agreement, dismissed the claim with prejudice (meaning that the claim cannot be brought again), and closed the case.
Oppenheimer v. Prutton: On February 28, 2023, the CCB issued its first final determination on the merits in the case Oppenheimer v. Prutton. The case was referred to the CCB from the federal district court for the Northern District of California before the CCB opened operations in June 2022. Since the respondent admitted to copying and displaying the claimant’s photograph on the respondent’s website, the CCB analyzed the respondent’s defenses of fair use and unclean hands. Ultimately, it found for the claimant on copyright liability, holding that the respondent failed to meet its burden of proof on the fair use defense by failing to address three out of the four fair use factors, and that the respondent also failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of unclean hands. The CCB awarded the claimant $1,000 in statutory damages. We further explored the implications and CCB’s analysis in this case in this blog post.
Leo Robin Trust v. Warner Chappell Music: On June 27, 2023, the CCB issued a final determination in the case Leo Robin Trust v. Warner Chappell Music. The case involved the estate of a songwriter, who alleged that the respondent, Warner Chappell Music, did not pay royalties for using the songwriter’s musical works in the 2019 film, The Aftermath. To prove that it is the owner of the works, the respondent provided evidence that the works were made under the work made for hire doctrine. The CCB granted the parties’ request to mutually dismiss the claim with prejudice, meaning that the claim cannot be brought before the CCB again or to federal court.
Armatus Dealer Uplift, LLC v. Wooden Automotive Consultants LLC: On July 5, 2023, the CCB issued a final determination in the case Armatus Dealer Uplift, LLC v. Wooden Automotive Consultants LLC. The case involved a claimant, an automotive parts servicer, who discovered an allegedly infringing video created by the respondent. The claimant argued that the respondent copied and made a derivative of the claimant’s 90-second video. The CCB approved a settlement reached by the two parties, which includes the following terms: (1) respondent’s concession of copyright infringement; (2) respondent’s agreement to not violate the claimant’s copyrighted material in the future and to immediately remove infringing material from its websites and social media platforms; and (3) $9,000 in damages payable to the claimant.
Hursey v. Lavaca LLC: On August 24, the CCB issued a final determination in the case of Hursey v. Lavaca LLC, adopting a proposed default determination. The case involved a professional photographer, Dana Hursey. who alleged that the respondent, Lavaca LLC, used Hursey’s photograph to advertise a product on the respondent’s website without authorization or a license. Despite multiple notices to the respondent, Lavaca did not respond to the CCB claims brought against it, and the CCB initiated default proceedings. The Board found that Lavaca was liable for copyright infringement because it had reproduced and publicly displayed an exact copy of the photograph on its commercial website. In its $3,000 award in statutory damages to Hursey, the Board examined Hursey’s evidence of normal licensing fees and models for a use of the work and determined that such award was in line with Fifth Circuit precedent and appropriate to deter Lavaca and others from unauthorized uses of Hursey’s works.
Subsequently, the CCB issued final determinations with similar analysis, awarding the same statutory damages awards in two other CCB cases involving Hursey’s works in Hursey v. Quinney and Hursey v. Hakimian Global, LLC. In both cases, the respondent parties failed to respond to the CCB claims brought against them, and the CCB initiated default proceedings.
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arif Skyline Cafe, LLC: On September 22, the CCB issued a final determination in the case of Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arif Skyline Café, LLC, adopting a proposed default determination. The case involved Joe Hand Promotions, a Pennsylvania corporation that commercially licenses premier sporting events, alleging that the respondents, Arif Skyline Café LLC and its manager Hellen A. Kassa, broadcasted a Joe Hands Promotions exclusively licensed boxing event at the respondents’ establishment without authorization or a license. Despite multiple notices to the respondents, they did not respond to the CCB claims brought against them, and the CCB initiated default proceedings. The CCB dismissed the claim against respondent, Kassa, without prejudice, noting that there was insufficient evidence tying Kassa to the infringing activities, but found Arif Skyline Café LLC liable for copyright infringement, awarding claimant $3,000 in statutory damages based on Joe Hand Promotions’ licensing rates and as a deterrence against similar infringing activities from Arif and others.
Subsequently, the CCB issued a final determination with similar analysis, awarding the same statutory damages award on October 4, 2023, in Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., v. The Village Restaurant et al.. In this case, the respondent party failed to respond to the CCB claims brought against them, and the CCB initiated default proceedings.
Julie Dermansky v. Rule 62, Inc.: On November 1, 2023, the CCB issued a final determination in the case of Julie Dermansky v. Rule 62, Inc., adopting a proposed default determination. The case involved Julie Dermansky, a Louisiana-based photographer, alleging that respondent, Rule 62, Inc., a Florida limited liability company, copied her copyrighted photograph onto its website. Despite multiple notices to respondent, it did not respond to the CCB claims brought against it, and the CCB initiated default proceedings. The CCB found respondent liable for copyright infringement, awarding claimant $1,350 in statutory damages based on claimant’s past licenses and as a deterrence against similar infringing activities from Rule 62 and others.
Urbanlip.com, Ltd. v. Faviana International, Inc.: On November 1, 2023, the CCB issued a final determination in the case of Urbanlip.com, Ltd. v. Faviana International, Inc., adopting a proposed default determination. The case involved Urbanlip, a United Kingdom-based photo licensing agency, alleging that respondent, Faviana International, displayed one of its copyrighted photographs on Faviana’s commercial fashion website. Despite multiple notices to respondent, it did not respond to the CCB claims brought against it, and the CCB initiated default proceedings. The CCB found respondent liable for copyright infringement, awarding claimant $2,600 in statutory damages based on Urbanlip’s licensing regime and as a deterrence against similar infringing acts from Faviana International and others.
Benjamin Bronner v. EssayZoo: On November 20, 2023, the CCB issued a final determination in the case of Benjamin Bronner v. EssayZoo, adopting a proposed default determination. The case involved Benjamin Bronner, a professor at George Washington University School of Business, alleging that respondent EssayZoo published instructions and paper prompts for an essay that he assigned to his students. Despite multiple notices to respondent, it did not respond to the CCB claims brought against it, and the CCB initiated default proceedings. The CCB found respondent liable for copyright infringement, awarding claimant $1,200 in statutory damages based on EssayZoo deriving income from using Bronner’s prompts, even though Bronner does not license or sell them, and as a deterrence against similar infringing acts from EssayZoo and others.
We’re Still In the Early Stages of the CCB
As we recounted in our November roundup blog, there are close to 50 currently active proceedings at the CCB. As of the writing of this blog post, we also counted close to 90 active proceedings over the infant lifespan of the CCB. It is clear that the CCB staff continues to diligently work to properly administer and process these small copyright claims through its natural lifespan and timespan—which explains why most of the final determinations so far have been default determinations. We expect that will change over time, as cases brought before the CCB continue to mature.
We’ll continue to check back on future CCB final determinations to see if there are interesting new developments or analysis coming from the Board as cases continue to unfold and wrap up in 2024. In the meantime, you can learn more about the small copyright claims court on our CCB Explained webpage and stay up to date by signing up for our CCB Alert.
If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!