Central directly liable as a matter of law for copying the images onto Master’s web site. It also
found Master vicariously liable as a matter of law. The control prong of vicarious liability was
satisfied because Master had the power to approve changes that West Central made to its
corporate web site, including whether photos were used, and also had the ability to stop or limit
infringing uses. West Central received a financial benefit from the infringement because the use
of the copyrighted images (three of which depicted janitorial and cleaning services) helped draw
customers.^2176
(m) Arista Records v. Lime Group(For a discussion of vicarious liability in this case, see Section III.C.4(d) below.)(n) Hermeris v. Brandenburg(For a discussion of vicarious liability in this case, see Section III.C.2(l) above.)(o) Luvdarts v. AT&T MobilityIn Luvdarts LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,^2177 the court ruled on a motion to dismiss that
the defendant wireless carriers had no vicarious liability for operation of a system that enabled
sharing of mobile multimedia messaging (MMS) content between devices, including the
plaintiffs’ copyrighted electronic greeting messages, because the plaintiffs had not plausibly
alleged that the defendants had the right or ability to filter the content transmitted on their
wireless networks. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiffs had designed their “Luvdarts”
mobile multimedia messaging content several years after the defendants designed their mobile
multimedia messaging system.^2178 “The court is not aware of any authority that would require
Defendants to retrofit their general purpose network to accommodate technology later developed
by a third-party for the purpose of being transmitted with that very technology.”^2179 The court
also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for inducement and contributory infringement because the
plaintiffs had not alleged that the defendants’ networks were designed with the object of
promoting infringement or that the defendants had taken affirmative steps to actively encourage
or induce infringement, and the defendants’ wireless networks were capable of noninfringing
uses.^2180
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.^2181 With respect to vicarious liability, the court
noted that Luvdarts conceded that the defendant carriers had no way of supervising the use of
their networks for copyright infringement. Instead, Luvdarts’ complaint alleged only that the
(^2176) Id. at 2 & 7-9.
(^2177) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28369 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011), aff’d, 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013).
(^2178) Id. at 9, 11.
(^2179) Id. at 10-11.
(^2180) Id. at *7.
(^2181) Luvdarts LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013).