Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

In the last few years, as advertising has followed consumers from legacy media such as television to online video and social media platforms, the <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/federal-trade-commission" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federal Trade Commission</a> has been attempting to ensure that participants in this new advertising ecosystem understand the importance of complying with the FTC’s “<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising</a>,” or the endorsement guides. The endorsement guides require advertisers and endorsers (also referred to as influencers) to, among other things, clearly and conspicuously disclose when the advertiser has provided an endorser with any type of compensation in exchange for an endorsement.A failure to make appropriate disclosures may be a violation of <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/ftca.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act</a>, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In recent enforcement actions, press releases, guidance, closing letters and letters sent directly to endorsers (including prominent public figures), the FTC has made clear its belief that: (1) appropriate disclosures by influencers are essential to protecting consumers; and (2) in too many instances, such disclosures are absent from celebrity or other influencer endorsements.Given the repetition of this message, it is apparent that the FTC believes it is still not being heard. With influencer marketing campaigns showing no signs of losing popularity, it would not be surprising if the next step the FTC takes is to bring an enforcement action against a major celebrity, as well as the brand or brands with which the celebrity is associated. So, with the FTC on the prowl, brands, advertisers and marketing companies should all be making sure they have a compliance program in place to increase the likelihood that the FTC makes its splash elsewhere. In this post, we recount how the FTC has gotten to where it is today and, thus, why it might be heading for a celebrity enforcement action next.In the BeginningThe FTC’s activity in the endorsement and influencer space is grounded in its endorsement guides, which outline how the FTC believes a business may lawfully use consumer and other endorsements in its advertising. The endorsement guides provide, in relevant part, that any “material connection” between an endorser and an advertiser—in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement—must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. The FTC’s thinking is typified by this example from its endorsement guide FAQs:Say you’re planning a vacation. You do some research and find a glowing review on someone’s blog that a particular resort is the most luxurious place he has ever stayed. If you knew the hotel had paid the blogger hundreds of dollars to say great things about it or that the blogger had stayed there for several days for free, it could affect how much weight you’d give the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger should, therefore, let his readers know about that relationship.The scope of a material connection, as stated in the endorsement guides and as interpreted by the FTC, including in the FAQs, is quite broad. It includes, for example, a business relationship, a payment, a gift or a sweepstakes entry. The scope of actors subject to the rules is also quite broad: it includes advertising and marketing companies that facilitate campaigns on behalf of advertisers (i.e., brands), those advertisers/brands themselves, and the endorsers or influencers acting on behalf of the marketing companies or brands. As discussed below, the FTC’s enforcement actions have involved each of these types of participants in influencer marketing activities.First, the Marketing FirmsThe FTC’s efforts to regulate this ecosystem began in late 2014 when the FTC brought its first enforcement action specifically related to social media activity (though this case also included straightforward allegations of deceptively made statements). The FTC alleged that the advertising firm Deutsch LA Inc. engaged in deceptive activities relating to the promotion, through <a href="https://www.law360.com/companies/twitter-inc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a>, on behalf of its client Sony, of the PlayStation Vita handheld gaming console.In a story that would become familiar over the next few years, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1503deutschcmpt.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FTC’s complaint</a> alleged that company employees responded to a request from an assistant account executive at the company to use their personal Twitter accounts to post positive comments about the Sony console, each using the “#gamechanger” hashtag. The complaint includes examples of the employees’ tweets, such as, “One thing can be said about PlayStation Vita…it’s a #gamechanger.” The FTC alleged that the employees’ tweets were deceptive because they falsely purported to be endorsements from actual users of the Sony gaming console. Moreover, the fact that the tweets were written by employees of Sony’s ad agency would have been material to consumers in making decisions about whether to purchase the console. For this reason, the tweeters’ failure to disclose their connection to Deutsch LA (and, in turn, to Sony) was allegedly deceptive.In September 2015, the FTC brought a very similar case against Machinima Inc., an online entertainment network. Machinima allegedly paid video bloggers to promote the <a href="https://www.law360.com/companies/microsoft-corporation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Microsoft Xbox One</a> system by producing and uploading to <a href="https://www.law360.com/companies/youtube-inc">YouTube</a> videos of themselves playing Xbox One games. The FTC alleged that Machinima did not require any disclosure of the compensation the influencers received and that many videos lacked any such disclosure. Because the payments would not be reasonably expected by YouTube viewers, the failure to disclose them was deceptive in violation of Section 5.Then, the BrandsIn connection with the Machinima matter, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/closing_letters/nid/150902machinima_letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FTC also issued a closing letter</a> reflecting that it had also investigated Microsoft and its advertising agency Starcom in relation to the influencers’ videos. (Starcom managed the relationship with Machinima.) Even though the FTC did not ultimately take action against Microsoft (or Starcom), the closing letter made clear the FTC’s position that a company whose products are promoted bears responsibility for the actions of its ad agencies — as well as the actions of those engaged by its ad agencies. In particular, Microsoft avoided an enforcement action because it had a “robust” compliance program in place that included specific guidance relating to the FTC’s endorsement guides and because Microsoft made training relating to the endorsement guides available to employees, vendors and personnel at Starcom. (The FTC also subsequently updated its endorsement guides FAQs to formalize the expectations that were foreshadowed in the closing letter, including the statement that “[a]dvertisers need to have reasonable programs in place to train and monitor members of their network.”)Consistent with its incremental approach, the FTC followed these actions with its first complaint against a brand for its use of social media influencers. In early 2016, the FTC alleged that <a href="https://www.law360.com/companies/lord-taylor-llc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lord & Taylor</a> gifted a dress to 50 “fashion influencers” and paid them to post photos of themselves wearing the dress on their <a href="https://www.law360.com/companies/instagram-inc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a> accounts. According to the FTC, Lord & Taylor’s role in the promotional effort was not appropriately disclosed. The FTC thus alleged that the company violated Section 5’s prohibition on deceptive practices by, among other things, failing to disclose that the influencers’ Instagram posts did not reflect their independent and impartial statements, but rather were specifically created as part of an advertising campaign in which they were paid to participate.The FTC followed the Lord & Taylor action with <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/warner-bros-settles-ftc-charges-it-failed-adequately-disclose-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a similar settlement</a> relating to a company’s alleged failure to disclose that it had paid online influencers to post positive reviews in YouTube videos and on social media. Here, while the company allegedly instructed influencers to provide a written disclosure that videos were sponsored, they did not “require that the YouTube influencers be instructed to place a sponsorship disclosure clearly and conspicuously in the video itself.”Taken together, these actions show how the FTC has moved incrementally, starting with matters involving standard-fare alleged deceptive practices by marketing companies that also involved social media endorsements, and then escalating to enforcement actions against brands based on specific failures to include disclosures in a specific manner.To Individual Endorsers (Sort Of)Having covered two of the major parts of the social media advertising ecosystem, the logical next step for the FTC is individuals who are paid to make endorsements. Here, as with previous actions, the FTC has started (relatively) conservatively with an enforcement action announced in September 2017 against a company—and two of its officers—in connection with endorsements made by the officers in YouTube videos and social media. The company, CSGO Lotto Inc., runs an online virtual currency gambling website. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623184_csgolotto_complaint.pdf">FTC alleged</a> that the company provided two individuals (who were also owners and officers of the company) with free virtual currency to gamble on the site and that the two did not disclose their material connections to the company when they promoted it online. For example, both of the individuals created YouTube videos promoting CSGO Lotto and disseminated tweets linking to their videos and directly promoting the site (e.g., “Bruh … I’ve won like $8,000 worth of CS:GO Skins today on @CSGOLotto I cannot even believe it!”).The FTC’s allegations in this case are similar to those of the previous influencer cases, such as that the company failed to include appropriate disclosures of sponsorship in YouTube videos. But, the FTC also alleged that the officers of the company—who were named individually in the complaint — engaged in violation of Section 5 as influencers by, among other things, failing to disclose that they were owners/officers of the company, which “would be material to consumers in their decisions regarding using CSGO Lotto.”What’s Next?The CSGO Lotto case sets the stage for an enforcement action against an influencer alone. Perhaps to drive home the point, the FTC accompanied its announcement of its settlement of that case with<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/09/three-ftc-actions-interest-influencers" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> the disclosure that it had sent follow-up letters to 21 influencers</a> who, in April 2017, had received letters from the FTC regarding brand endorsements. The FTC noted that it asked the recipients to tell the FTC whether “they have material connections to the brands” in social media posts the FTC flagged and, if so, “to spell out the steps they will be taking to make sure they clearly disclose their material connections to brands and businesses.”Given the FTC’s activity in this space, the parameters for running an influencer campaign that complies with Section 5 are becoming well established. To help mitigate the risk of being the FTC’s next example, some practical considerations include:<ul><li>Implementation of a process for obtaining signed and dated acknowledgements of disclosure and related obligations from each influencer with a material connection (which may include, for example, a paid relationship, a professional relationship, or free goods or services);</li><li>An explicit requirement that the endorser make clear and prominent disclosures of the material connections between the endorser and the advertiser;</li><li>A process for monitoring and reviewing social media influencers for compliance; and</li><li>Maintaining the right to immediately terminate the arrangement in light of noncompliance.</li></ul>Influencers should also understand that they must clearly and conspicuously disclose their affiliations with the brands that they promote, above the jump in the post or video. And all companies that use social media influencers should consider the policies and procedures they have in place or need to develop to ensure that they, their influencers and any other parties they work with in this space are meeting the FTC’s expectations. If they don’t, they risk falling victim to the FTC’s next efforts to promote itself as the top cop on the endorsement beat.*    *    *Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared in <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1014039/the-ftc-s-quest-for-better-influencer-disclosures">Law360</a>.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

gettyimages-689976460-600px-300x212.jpg

The FTC’s Quest for Better Influencer Disclosures

The FTC’s Quest for Better Influencer Disclosures

In the last few years, as advertising has followed consumers from legacy media such as television to online video and social media platforms, the Federal Trade 

In U.S. copyright law circles, one of the hottest topics of debate is the degree to which the fair use doctrine—which allows for certain unauthorized uses of copyrighted works—should protect companies building commercial products and services based on content created by others, especially where such products or services are making transformative uses of such content.This debate is likely to become even more heated in the wake of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ issuance last week of its <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tveyes-fox.pdf">long-awaited decision</a> in the copyright dispute between Fox News and TVEyes, in which the court sided with the copyright owner over the creator of a digital “search engine” for identifying and viewing television content. But regardless of which side of the debate you are on (or if you are just standing on the sidelines), the court’s decision provides important guidance on the scope of the fair use doctrine as applied to commercial products and services.<h5>The Dispute</h5>Using the closed-captioning data that accompanies most television programming, TVEyes provides a searchable database of video clips. TVEyes’ subscribers—who pay $500 a month—can search the database for keywords in order to identify and view video clips from the service; such video clips may be as long as ten minutes in duration.In July 2013, Fox sued TVEyes for copyright infringement and, in August 2015, Judge Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the key features of the TVEyes service are protected under the fair use doctrine.In support of their respective positions at the district court level and on appeal, both parties pointed to the Second Circuit’s decision in the Google Books case, in which the Second Circuit held that Google’s creation of a searchable database of millions of published books enabling users to view short snippets of the books constitutes a fair use. District court Judge Hellerstein <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2013cv05315/415525/173/">found that the Google Books decision supported a fair use finding for TVEyes</a>.Now, more than two years later, the Second Circuit, in consideration of the same precedent, reached the opposite conclusion, finding <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">the four-factor fair use test</a> weighed against TVEyes. Although the court acknowledged its Google Books decision as a key precedent, it cautioned that the decision “tested the boundaries of fair use,” and that the TVEyes service at issue had “exceeded those bounds.”<h5>The First Fair Use Factor: The Purpose and Character of the Secondary Use</h5>Regarding the first factor—the “purpose and character” of the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s work—courts have increasingly focused primarily on whether the defendant’s use is “transformative,” that is, whether the defendant’s use “<a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20151016081">communicates something new and different from the original or [otherwise] expands its utility</a>.” Here, the Second Circuit found that TVEyes’s copying of Fox News content in order to enable “nearly instant access” for viewing purposes to portions of such content “is at least somewhat transformative.”The Second Circuit’s first-factor analysis, however, did not end with this observation; the court also considered the commercial nature of TVEyes’s use of Fox News content:The commercial nature of a secondary use weighs against a finding of fair use. And it does so especially when, as here, the transformative character of the secondary use is modest. The [TVEyes service at issue] has only a modest transformative character because, notwithstanding the transformative manner in which it delivers content, it essentially republishes that content unaltered from its original form, with no “new expression, meaning or message.”The court rejected TVEyes’s argument that its customers’ use of service-generated video clips for their research needs strengthened the transformative nature of the service. The court noted that “[t]he clients of TVEyes use Fox’s news broadcasts for the same purpose that authorized Fox viewers use those broadcasts—the purpose of learning the information reported.”Bottom line: The court concluded that “[t]he first statutory factor . . . favors TVEyes, albeit slightly.”<h5>The Second Fair Use Factor: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work</h5>The Second Circuit, quoting its Google Books decision, stated that the second fair use factor—which looks at the nature of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work—“has rarely played a significant role in the determination of a fair use dispute” and added that “it plays no significant role here.”Bottom line: The second factor “is neutral in this case,” favoring neither party.<h5>The Third Fair Use Factor: The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion of the Work Used</h5>The third factor focuses on the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The court held that “[t]his factor clearly favors Fox because TVEyes makes available virtually the entirety of the Fox programming that TVEyes users want to see and hear.” The court noted that, in this regard, the TVEyes service at issue is “radically dissimilar” to the service at issue in Google Books, which was designed “to ensure that users could see only a very small piece of a book’s content.”Bottom line: The third factor “strongly favors” Fox News because TVEyes’s use of Fox’s content is “both ‘extensive’ and inclusive of all that is ‘important’ from the copyrighted work.”<h5>The Fourth Fair Use Factor: Effect on Potential Market for or Value of the Work</h5>Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1985 <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539/case.html">Harper & Row decision</a>, the Second Circuit noted that the fourth factor—which concerns the effect of the defendant’s use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work—is “undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.” The court summarized and weighed the parties’ respective fourth-factor positions as follows:TVEyes argues that its service poses little risk of being a “competing substitute” for Fox’s offering . . . . Fox argues that TVEyes undercuts Fox’s ability to profit from licensing searchable access to its copyrighted content to third parties. Fox has much the stronger point.The court further observed, “By providing Fox’s content to TVEyes clients without payment to Fox, TVEyes is in effect depriving Fox of licensing revenues from TVEyes or from similar entities.”Bottom line: “[T]he fourth factor favors Fox . . . because TVEyes has usurped a function for which Fox is entitled to demand compensation under a licensing agreement.”<h5>The Outcome</h5>Tallying up the four factors—one slightly favoring TVEyes, two favoring Fox and one favoring neither party—the Second Circuit concluded that “the balance strongly favors Fox and defeats the defense of fair use.” The case was remanded to the district court to revise and broaden an earlier-issued injunction to cover the TVEyes’ video watch service, in accordance with the Second Circuit’s opinion.<h5>Concluding Thoughts</h5>The fair use doctrine has been on quite a run. In recent years, rights holders have complained that courts have been expanding the doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries to protect intensely commercial activity. Proponents of the fair use doctrine note that it is essential to foster innovative and popular services, especially in the digital age.The Second Circuit decision shows that fair use still has its limits, especially in the commercial context. It also highlights that judges looking at the same facts and applying the same multifactor fair use test often reach differing conclusions. That means, going forward, we will likely continue to see high-stakes litigation between copyright owners and digital content platforms and distributors. *                   *                  *Editors’ Note: Morrison & Foerster attorneys (but not the authors of this post) assisted in the preparation of an amicus brief by the National Association of Broadcasters that was filed with the Second Circuit in support of Fox News. As always, the views expressed herein are not to be attributed to Morrison & Foerster or its clients.For more on the fair use defense to copyright infringement, check out these Socially Aware posts: <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2015/11/17/google-books-and-fair-use-from-implausible-to-inevitable/">Google Books and Fair Use: From Implausible to Inevitable?</a>; <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2013/04/02/southern-district-of-new-york-examines-whether-news-clipping-service-qualifies-as-fair-use-under-copyright-act/">Southern District of New York Examines Whether News Clipping Service Qualifies as Fair Use Under Copyright Act</a>; and <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2012/06/18/what-what-in-the-court-south-park-studios-shielded-by-fair-use-for-viral-video-parody/">What, What (In the Court): South Park Studios Shielded by Fair Use for Viral Video Parody</a>.

L.W. v. Snap Inc.,  675 F. Supp. 3d 1087 

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea , 2021 WL 3038402 

In re Maxus Energy Corp.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC

NFL Enterprises LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v WebMD Health Corp. 2017 WL 6610411  

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.

Komag, Inc. v. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

Asante Techs. Inc. v. PMC–Sierra, Inc.

Biovail Corp. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt. 2009 WL 2844404 

Multi–Faceted Investigation of University Grants

Confidential International Arbitrations

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

gettyimages-452189219-600px-269x300.jpg

All Eyes on Fair Use: The Second Circuit Delivers a Victory for Copyright Owners

All Eyes on Fair Use: The Second Circuit Delivers a Victory for Copyright Owners