Second Circuit Summarily Affirms 512(c) Dismissal–Obodai v. Cracked

By Eric Goldman

Obodai v. Cracked Entertainment Inc., 2013 WL 2321420 (2d Cir. May 29, 2013).

I blogged this case last year. My understanding is that a user allegedly posted copyright infringing material to, and the purported copyright owner Obodai never sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices. The district court shut down Obodai’s copyright infringement lawsuit against, and the appeals court is no more receptive to his argument. The court’s entire substantive discussion:

Obodai’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned summary judgment decision….In short, the district court correctly determined that Demand Media was eligible for the User Storage Safe Harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U .S.C. s 512, because the undisputed evidence established that Demand Media satisfied the requirements under s 512(c) and (i). The record does not support Obodai’s assertion that Demand Media’s use of the software tool “Tynt” required the district court to reach a different result.

I wish this ruling gave us better insight into the Second Circuit’s attitudes towards 512(c) post-Viacom v. YouTube, but the reality is that (a) Obodai never sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices, normally a fatal situation, and (b) Obodai proceeded pro se, also normally a fatal situation. Put the two together and you get a brief summary affirmance without much additional precedential insight.