## Facts

- Multiple record companies owning copyrights in popular sound recordings sued Richard Sinnott, owner and operator of the Marysville Flea Market (MFM), where vendors sold counterfeit CDs and cassettes.
- MFM operated weekly, renting booth space to vendors and attracting substantial customer traffic; Sinnott also provided basic market services (e.g., security and utilities) and earned revenue from booth rentals and concessions.
- Investigators acting for the copyright owners documented widespread sales of pirated recordings by vendors at MFM, including large quantities of counterfeit media.
- Sinnott was repeatedly notified of the infringing activity: investigators directly informed him, and he received several written notices warning that vendors were selling counterfeit recordings and that he could face liability if the conduct continued.
- Sinnott did not respond to the notices and claimed he was unaware of infringement or had not read the letters.
- Sinnott retained control over vendor participation at MFM through booth rental decisions and the ability to remove vendors.

## Issues

1. Whether a flea market operator is contributorily liable when, with knowledge (or willful blindness) of vendors’ infringement, he provides the venue and services enabling infringing sales.
2. Whether a flea market operator is vicariously liable when he has the right and ability to supervise vendors and receives a direct financial benefit from infringing activity.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability because no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to these elements.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Sinnott’s liability, leaving damages for later proceedings.
- The court held Sinnott liable for contributory copyright infringement based on knowledge (including willful blindness) and material contribution through provision of the site and market services.
- The court held Sinnott liable for vicarious copyright infringement because he had the right and ability to supervise vendors and obtained a direct financial benefit from the infringing sales’ customer draw and related revenues.
- The court found Sinnott’s denial of knowledge insufficient to create a triable issue given repeated notices and the evidentiary record.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory infringement exists where a defendant, with knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to another’s infringement.
- Providing the site and operational support that enables known infringing sales can constitute material contribution.
- Vicarious infringement exists where a defendant has the right and ability to supervise infringing activity and a direct financial interest in that activity.
- A direct financial benefit may be shown where infringing vendors increase customer traffic that supports booth-rental and related revenues.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court imposed contributory and vicarious copyright liability on a flea market operator who, after repeated notice of vendors’ counterfeit-recording sales, continued providing the venue and services while retaining supervisory control and profiting from the infringement-driven customer draw.


UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Sinnott, 300 F. Supp. 2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2004)