## Facts

- Ventura Content, Ltd. owned copyrights in adult films and alleged that 33 infringing video clips derived from its works were uploaded to Motherless.com.
- Motherless.com was a user-generated content website where registered users selected and uploaded content; the operator did not preselect the specific clips at issue.
- The uploaded clips lacked watermarks, credits, or other identifying information indicating Ventura’s ownership.
- Motherless maintained a posted policy warning that repeat infringers could have accounts terminated and, in practice, removed complained-of content and banned users who repeatedly infringed.
- After Ventura sent a takedown notice identifying the allegedly infringing clips, Motherless removed the specified material promptly.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Motherless under the DMCA safe harbor, declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, and denied Motherless’s request for attorneys’ fees.
- Ventura appealed the summary judgment and jurisdiction ruling; Motherless cross-appealed the denial of fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the clips were “stored at the direction of a user” under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).
2. Whether Motherless had actual knowledge or “red flag” awareness of specific infringement disqualifying it from § 512(c) protection.
3. Whether Motherless received a financial benefit directly attributable to infringement that it had the right and ability to control under § 512(c)(1)(B).
4. Whether Motherless adopted, informed users of, and reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer termination policy under § 512(i)(1)(A).
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying attorneys’ fees to Motherless under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Motherless, holding it qualified for the DMCA § 512(c) safe harbor.
- The court held the clips were stored at the direction of users, not directed or selected by the site operator.
- The court found no evidence of actual or red-flag knowledge of Ventura’s specific works before notice, and held Motherless acted expeditiously after receiving the takedown notice.
- The court rejected the argument that general site revenue and ordinary administrative powers showed a disqualifying financial benefit coupled with the right and ability to control infringement.
- The court held Motherless’s repeat-infringer policy was adopted, communicated, and reasonably implemented on the record presented.
- The court affirmed the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.
- The court affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees to Motherless.
- A partial dissent would have found triable fact issues on reasonable implementation of the repeat-infringer policy, making summary judgment improper on safe harbor.

## Legal Principles

- A service provider qualifies for § 512(c) safe harbor when infringing material is stored at the direction of users and the provider meets the statute’s knowledge, expeditious removal, financial-benefit/control, and repeat-infringer-policy conditions.
- For § 512(c)(1)(A), generalized awareness that infringement occurs on a platform is insufficient; disqualification requires actual knowledge or facts making specific infringement apparent.
- Expeditious removal upon receiving a compliant notice supports safe-harbor protection.
- Under § 512(c)(1)(B), the “right and ability to control” requires more than ordinary power to remove or block content; a direct financial benefit must be tied to the infringing activity.
- Under § 512(i)(1)(A), a provider must adopt, inform users of, and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers; evidence of actual enforcement may satisfy the implementation requirement.
- Declining supplemental jurisdiction after resolution of the federal claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Attorneys’ fee decisions under § 505 are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are not mandatory for a prevailing party.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a user-driven adult-content hosting site qualified for DMCA § 512(c) safe harbor because the clips were user-uploaded, the operator lacked specific pre-notice knowledge, removed content promptly after notice, did not have a disqualifying financial benefit coupled with control, and reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy; it also upheld the district court’s refusal to retain supplemental jurisdiction and its denial of attorneys’ fees.


Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc., 885 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018)