Advanced Copyright Law on the Internet

that LoopNet designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement under the
DMCA, as required by Section 512(c)(2) of the DMCA.^2990

(ii) Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network

In Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.,^2991 the plaintiff had submitted various notices
to Photobucket requesting that images infringing her copyrights be taken down, some of which
complied with the DMCA notice requirements and some of which did not. Where a DMCA
compliant notice was submitted, Photobucket took down the allegedly infringing photo.
Photobucket also had taken down photos where the plaintiff had sufficiently identified the
alleged infringements, even if the notice was not DMCA compliant. Despite these removals, the
plaintiff contended that more infringing photos remained on Photobucket, although she had not
provided DMCA compliant notices to remove them.^2992

Photobucket sought summary judgment under the DMCA safe harbors. For purposes of
asserting the safe harbors as a defense, the court ruled that Photobucket had adequately satisfied
the predicate requirement of designating an agent to receive DMCA notifications. Photobucket
posted contact information of its agent on its web site, including instructions to send notices to
“Copyright Agent” at a listed physical address, email address, or fax. The court held that,
although this contact information did not include a name or phone number, the statute mandates
that the service provider provide only “substantially the following information” referenced in the
statute, and by including the physical address, email address and fax number of the copyright
agent, Photobucket had included sufficient information to have properly designated an agent.^2993

(iii) Perfect 10 v. Yandex

In Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex,^2994 Yandex offered a broad range of search functions over
the Internet. Perfect 10 sent hundreds of DMCA takedown notices to Yandex requesting that it
remove links to thousands of allegedly infringing images. Perfect 10 moved for partial summary
judgment, among other things, that Yandex was ineligible for any DMCA safe harbor defense
during the period when it had no DMCA agent registered with the Copyright Office. The court
granted Perfect 10 partial summary judgment on the issue. The court rejected Yandex’s
argument that Section 512(c)(2) does not require that its agent be registered with the Copyright
Office, only that it have an agent, on the ground that Congress intended for the courts to enforce
only substantial compliance with the DMCA’s safe harbor requirements. The court noted that
the phrase “substantially the following information” in the statutory provision requiring
registration of an agent modifies the ensuing subparagraphs that list types of contact information

(^2990) Id. at 697 & n.4.
(^2991) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27541 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2011).
(^2992) Id. at *1-2.
(^2993) Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, 748-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d sub nom. Wolk v.
Photobucket, Inc., 569 Fed. Appx. 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order).
(^2994) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65802 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2013).