over the course of three or four years, notifying Cybernet of alleged copyright infringement on
its system. In addition, Cybernet’s site reviewers reviewed every site before allowing the sites to
become members of Cybernet’s service, and the court found that there was evidence that many
sites contained disclaimers to the effect that the site did not hold copyrights for the works on the
site.^2020 Accordingly, the court ruled that there was “a strong likelihood of success in proving
general knowledge of copyright infringement prior to Perfect 10’s filing of the complaint” as
well as “serious questions as to Cybernet’s constructive knowledge of infringement of Perfect
10’s copyrights prior to the complaint raised by this general knowledge, Cybernet’s review of
sites containing Perfect 10 images and the likelihood of those sites containing copyright
disclaimers. Further, there appears to be little question that Cybernet has been provided with
actual notice of a large number of alleged infringements since June 2001.”^2021
Citing the Fonovisa case,^2022 the court also concluded that Cybernet had materially
contributed to the infringements by providing technical and content advice to its member sites,
reviewing those sites, and attempting to control the quality of the product it presented to
subscribers as a unified brand.^2023
(g) Perfect 10 v. Visa InternationalIn Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Ass’n,^2024 Perfect 10, owner of the
copyrights in pornographic materials, sought to hold various credit card and banking institutions
liable for contributory and vicarious infringement for providing financial services to various web
sites that Perfect 10 alleged contained infringing copies of its copyrighted materials. The district
court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
With respect to contributory liability, the defendants did not contest the issue of their
knowledge of infringement, but denied that they materially contributed to the infringement. The
district court agreed. Unlike the defendant age verification service in Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Cybernet Ventures, Inc.,^2025 which advertised the infringing web sites and paid a commission to
a web site whenever someone registered for its services through that particular web site, the court
noted that the defendants in the instant case did not promote the web sites that used their
services, nor have any content-specific regulations with which merchants must comply before
using their services.^2026
The court rejected Perfect 10’s argument that because the defendants provided essential
financial services to alleged infringers, they were materially contributing to the infringement.
(^2020) Id. at 1169.
(^2021) Id. at 1170 (emphasis in original).
(^2022) Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996).
(^2023) Perfect 10, 213 F. Supp. 2d at 1170.
(^2024) 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1914 (N.D. Cal. 2004), aff’d, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1079 (2008).
(^2025) 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
(^2026) Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1917.