Copyright Alliance
Join Now
Login
  • about
    • Who We Are
    • Who We Represent
    • Leadership
    • Boards
    • Contact Us
  • issues & policy
    • Statements to Congress
    • Agency and other Filings
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers
    • Copyright Subject Matter Search
  • copyright law
    • Copyright Act
    • Copyright Regulations
    • Copyright Office Compendium
    • Copyright Cases
    • Copyright Legislation
    • Government Reports
    • Congressional Hearings
    • International Agreements
  • resources
    • Find a Copyright Attorney
    • Creator Services
    • Creator Assistance Directory
    • find a copyright owner
    • Research Papers
    • Copyright Facts by State
    • Classroom Resources
    • REPORT PIRACY
  • news & events
    • Blogs
    • Press Releases
    • Media Center
    • Trending Topics
    • Event Calendar
  • education
    • videos
    • FAQs
    • Ask The Alliance
    • Copyright Law Explained
    • copyright courses
  • get involved
    • Join the Alliance
    • Add Your Voice
    • Copyright Alliance Policy Alert
image

Disney v. VidAngel

  • Allen v. Cooper
  • BMG v. Cox
  • Brammer v. Violent Hues
  • BWP Media v. Polyvore
  • Bynum v. Texas A&M University Athletic Department
  • Capitol Records v. ReDigi
  • Disney v. VidAngel
  • Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix
  • Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com
  • Fox News Network v. TVEyes
  • Georgia v. Public Resource Org
  • Green (EFF) v. DOJ
  • Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons
  • Lang Van v. VNG
  • Oracle v. Google
  • Perfect 10 v. Giganews
  • Rentmeester v. Nike
  • Rimini Street v. Oracle
  • SAS Institute v. World Programming Limited
  • Spanski v. Telewizja
  • UMG Recordings v. Kurbanov
  • University of Houston System v. Jim Olive Photography
  • Valancourt Books v. Temple
  • VHT v. Zillow

Disney, Twentieth Century Fox and other movie studios sued VidAngel for copyright infringement and violating DMCA section 1201 for VidAngel’s service, which decrypts DVDs and filters “objectionable” content from movies and TV shows, and streams the programs to its customers. In December 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction against VidAngel, holding that its service violated Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to reproduce and publicly perform their copyrighted works pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and § 106(4), and violated DMCA section 1201(a)(1)(A) by circumventing the technological protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs. It further rejected VidAngel’s argument that a content filtering service complies with the Family Home Movie Act (FMA) as well as its fair use defense. VidAngel appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On August 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling.

On March 9, 2019, the District Court for the Central District of California granted Summary Judgment on Liability in favor of the plaintiffs. Following that ruling, a jury awarded the plaintiffs $62.4 million in damages.


Procedural History

  • Ninth Circuit (Aug. 24, 2017)
  • CDCA Preliminary Injunction (Dec. 12, 2016)

 

Status: Ninth Circuit affirmed. (August 24, 2017); District Court for the Central District of California granted Summary Judgment on Liability (June 9, 2019); Jury awarded damages. (June 17, 2019)

Amicus Briefs

  • Copyright Alliance (Feb. 15, 2017)

Back to Copyright Cases

copyright alliance

1331 h street nw, suite 701

washington, dc 20005

202-540-2243

copyrightalliance.org

join the alliance
Donate
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
contact us disclaimer privacy policy

© 2021 Copyright Alliance

COVID-19 Update: Resources from Creative Community to Ease Coronavirus Impact READ MORE
+