Serial Copyright Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Enforce Third-Party Copyrights–Viral DRM v 7News

This case involves Viral DRM, which syndicates third-party videos of extreme weather events. It claims that 7News Australia downloaded videos from YouTube, stripped out the copyright management information (CMI), and incorporated the videos into its own videos that it uploaded to YouTube.

At issue in this case is whether Viral DRM obtains ownership or exclusive licensing rights to the third-party videos it syndicates. Without such an arrangement, Viral DRM doesn’t have legal standing to enforce the copyrights per 17 USC 501(b). Viral DRM uses a form agreement with its syndicatees called the “Exclusive Copyright Management Agreement.” (The agreement is filed on the docket but it remains under seal, or else I would have included it here). The court says that Viral DRM’s exclusive “management” rights is not the same as ownership or an exclusive license to the copyright. All of this discussion had a Righthaven vibe to it, and it ends up in the same place. The court says that Viral DRM doesn’t have standing to enforce the copyright.

I’m blogging this otherwise-routine opinion because I blogged another opinion involving Viral DRM where it tried a SAD Scheme attack on various YouTube uploaders. After granting Viral DRM a TRO in that case, the district court subsequently dismissed Viral DRM’s case on jurisdiction and joinder grounds. My view is that the court should have spotted thise jurisdiction and joinder issues at the TRO stage, not after.

To be clear, the ruling I’m blogging today isn’t a SAD Scheme case. However, it highlights another problem with SAD Scheme cases. Based on this ruling, Viral DRM’s earlier SAD Scheme lawsuit also may have been deficient on copyright standing grounds. However, a court would almost never independently spot the standing problem at an ex parte TRO hearing. That would require the court to unilaterally probe the “Exclusive Copyright Management Agreement” and possibly force the plaintiff to disclose it to the court–the kind of investigation that district court judges rarely do sua sponte.

So the outcome in the most recent case exposes yet another reason to oppose the SAD Scheme, because plaintiffs could very well be overclaiming their copyright standing and judges are unlikely to realize this on their own.

In contrast to the copyright claim, this court says Viral DRM had standing to bring the 1202 CMI removal claim, because 1202 allows enforcement by anyone injured by the CMI removal. Because the 1202 ruling keeps the case alive, the court will let Viral DRM fix its copyright standing problem in an amended pleading.

Case Citation: Viral DRM LLC v. Seven West Media Ltd., 2025 WL 660250 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2025)

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme

• Another N.D. Ill. Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Zaful v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Rejects SAD Scheme Joinder–Toyota v. Schedule A Defendants
• Another Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Xie v. Annex A
• Will Judges Become More Skeptical of Joinder in SAD Scheme Cases?–Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A
• SAD Scheme Leads to Another Massively Disproportionate Asset Freeze–Powell v. Schedule A
• Misjoinder Dooms SAD Scheme Patent Case–Wang v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Hammers SEC for Lying to Get an Ex Parte TRO–SEC v. Digital Licensing
• Judge Reconsiders SAD Scheme Ruling Against Online Marketplaces–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• N.D. Cal. Judge Pushes Back on Copyright SAD Scheme Cases–Viral DRM v. YouTube Schedule A Defendants
• A Judge Enumerates a SAD Scheme Plaintiff’s Multiple Abuses, But Still Won’t Award Sanctions–Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather v. Schedule A Defendants
• Why Online Marketplaces Don’t Do More to Combat the SAD Scheme–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• SAD Scheme Cases Are Always Troubling–Betty’s Best v. Schedule A Defendants 
• Judge Pushes Back on SAD Scheme Sealing Requests
• Roblox Sanctioned for SAD Scheme Abuse–Roblox v. Schedule A Defendants
• Now Available: the Published Version of My SAD Scheme Article
• In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark
• Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for “Fraud on the Court”–Xped v. Respect the Look
• My Comments to the USPTO About the SAD Scheme and Anticounterfeiting/Antipiracy Efforts
• My New Article on Abusive “Schedule A” IP Lawsuits Will Likely Leave You Angry
• If the Word “Emoji” is a Protectable Trademark, What Happens Next?–Emoji GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants
• My Declaration Identifying Emoji Co. GmbH as a Possible Trademark Troll