Cariou, Viacom Copyright Suits Settlements

Cariou's lawyers announced the deal in a letter to District Judge Deborah Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. The terms of the agreement were confidential. (The letter is available at http://bit.ly/1dKpjuL.)

The settlement resolved what one industry publication called “the art world's most closely watch lawsuit.” See, “Prince Versus Cariou Copyright Case Settled,” The Art Newspaper. In 2008 Prince unveiled a series of 30 artworks that incorporated Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians. Prince displayed his pieces at Manhattan's esteemed Gagosian Gallery, which in turn sold some of them to collectors for a combined $10.5 million. Cariou, who only earned a paltry $8,000 in royalties from a book of his photos, sued Prince and the Gagosian for copyright infringement. That led to a precedent-setting fight over what constitutes a fair use under U.S. copyright laws.

Batts sided with Cariou in 2011, finding that Prince's works didn't qualify for fair use protection. Prince had testified during a deposition that he wasn't trying to comment on the original photographs or imbue them with any new meaning. In Batts' view, the crucial issue was whether Prince “transformed” Cariou's original work, and to be transformative a work must “comment on, relate to the historical context of or critically refer back to the original works.”

In a landmark April 2013 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Batts' reasoning and ruled that 25 of Prince's 30 works are protected by the fair use doctrine. Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694. The court remanded to the case to Batts to determine whether the remaining five works were infringing.

The Second Circuit's ruling was a big blow to Cariou, but the fight wasn't over. Batts, after all, had sided with Cariou the first time around, and the parties plowed ahead with summary judgment briefing on the remaining five works. (Briefing concluded in January.) Several trade groups signed an amicus brief backing Cariou, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association.

Cariou may have feared another defeat ' if not at the trial court, then on appeal ' and decided to call it a day. It's also possible that Prince, the wealthier of the two parties, offered Cariou a deal he couldn't refuse. In any case, according to Joshua Schiller of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, who represented Prince, his client was happy to have the case behind him.

Cariou's lawyer, Daniel Brooks of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, declined to comment except to say that the parties were happy with the settlement.

Viacom

The terms of the out-of-court settlement in Viacom's case against Google Inc.'s YouTube weren't made public either, but the underlying court battle brought mostly good news for Google and its lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

The settlement resolved allegations by Viacom that YouTube allowed its users to turn the video-sharing website into a haven for copyright infringement. Viacom, the parent company of TV channels like Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, sought $1 billion in damages from Google, claiming it knowingly turned a blind eye to infringing uploads of Viacom content like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Citing an anonymous source close to the deal, the Financial Times reported that no money changed hands. The companies said in a joint statement that the deal represents a “growing collaborative dialogue” between them.

Viacom brought suit in 2007, a year after Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion. Southern District Judge Louis Stanton initially dismissed the case in 2010, adopting Google's arguments that its activities are protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514.

District Judge Stanton's ruling led to a face-off at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit between Google lawyer Andrew Schapiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and Viacom counsel Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block.

The Second Circuit revived some of Viacom's claims in 2012 and instructed Judge Stanton to reconsider whether Google was willfully blind to certain instances of infringement. The appeals court noted an e-mail exchange in which a YouTube board member wrote that the company “would benefit from preemptively removing content that is blatantly illegal ' this will help to dispel YouTube's association with Napster,” the file-sharing service torpedoed by a recording industry lawsuit. Viacom Int'l v. YouTube Inc., 676 F.3d 19.

Judge Stanton brushed aside that evidence and dismissed the case once again in April 2013, prompting a new Second Circuit appeal by Viacom. Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110. Oral argument in Viacom's latest appeal had been scheduled for March 24, 2014.

Jan Wolfe is a reporter for Litigation Daily, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.

March 2014 turned out to be a big month for copyright litigation settlements. They all came without warning, but two seemed to make a lot of sense. Viacom Inc.'s landmark fight with YouTube was a holdover from an earlier era, and Viacom was facing diminishing returns on its second appeal. And why would the Beastie Boys and upstart toymaker GoldieBlox Inc. want to waste more legal bills on a dustup over a viral video that used the Beastie song “Girls” as the basis for a GoldieBlox advertisement.

A third settlement ' a truce between famed “appropriation” artist Richard Prince and photographer Patrick Cariou ' was a bit harder to explain. The duo still had plenty to fight about, and the plaintiff, Cariou, was back before a seemingly sympathetic judge with respected media industry amici on his side.

Cariou

Cariou's lawyers announced the deal in a letter to District Judge Deborah Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. The terms of the agreement were confidential. (The letter is available at http://bit.ly/1dKpjuL.)

The settlement resolved what one industry publication called “the art world's most closely watch lawsuit.” See, “Prince Versus Cariou Copyright Case Settled,” The Art Newspaper. In 2008 Prince unveiled a series of 30 artworks that incorporated Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians. Prince displayed his pieces at Manhattan's esteemed Gagosian Gallery, which in turn sold some of them to collectors for a combined $10.5 million. Cariou, who only earned a paltry $8,000 in royalties from a book of his photos, sued Prince and the Gagosian for copyright infringement. That led to a precedent-setting fight over what constitutes a fair use under U.S. copyright laws.

Batts sided with Cariou in 2011, finding that Prince's works didn't qualify for fair use protection. Prince had testified during a deposition that he wasn't trying to comment on the original photographs or imbue them with any new meaning. In Batts' view, the crucial issue was whether Prince “transformed” Cariou's original work, and to be transformative a work must “comment on, relate to the historical context of or critically refer back to the original works.”

In a landmark April 2013 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Batts' reasoning and ruled that 25 of Prince's 30 works are protected by the fair use doctrine. Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694. The court remanded to the case to Batts to determine whether the remaining five works were infringing.

The Second Circuit's ruling was a big blow to Cariou, but the fight wasn't over. Batts, after all, had sided with Cariou the first time around, and the parties plowed ahead with summary judgment briefing on the remaining five works. (Briefing concluded in January.) Several trade groups signed an amicus brief backing Cariou, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association.

Cariou may have feared another defeat ' if not at the trial court, then on appeal ' and decided to call it a day. It's also possible that Prince, the wealthier of the two parties, offered Cariou a deal he couldn't refuse. In any case, according to Joshua Schiller of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, who represented Prince, his client was happy to have the case behind him.

Cariou's lawyer, Daniel Brooks of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, declined to comment except to say that the parties were happy with the settlement.

Viacom

The terms of the out-of-court settlement in Viacom's case against Google Inc.'s YouTube weren't made public either, but the underlying court battle brought mostly good news for Google and its lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

The settlement resolved allegations by Viacom that YouTube allowed its users to turn the video-sharing website into a haven for copyright infringement. Viacom, the parent company of TV channels like Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, sought $1 billion in damages from Google, claiming it knowingly turned a blind eye to infringing uploads of Viacom content like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Citing an anonymous source close to the deal, the Financial Times reported that no money changed hands. The companies said in a joint statement that the deal represents a “growing collaborative dialogue” between them.

Viacom brought suit in 2007, a year after Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion. Southern District Judge Louis Stanton initially dismissed the case in 2010, adopting Google's arguments that its activities are protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514.

District Judge Stanton's ruling led to a face-off at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit between Google lawyer Andrew Schapiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and Viacom counsel Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block.

The Second Circuit revived some of Viacom's claims in 2012 and instructed Judge Stanton to reconsider whether Google was willfully blind to certain instances of infringement. The appeals court noted an e-mail exchange in which a YouTube board member wrote that the company “would benefit from preemptively removing content that is blatantly illegal ' this will help to dispel YouTube's association with Napster,” the file-sharing service torpedoed by a recording industry lawsuit. Viacom Int'l v. YouTube Inc., 676 F.3d 19.

Judge Stanton brushed aside that evidence and dismissed the case once again in April 2013, prompting a new Second Circuit appeal by Viacom. Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110. Oral argument in Viacom's latest appeal had been scheduled for March 24, 2014.

Jan Wolfe is a reporter for Litigation Daily, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.