Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
653 F.3d 976 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Following the Supreme Court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., a plaintiff in a copyright infringement case is not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm when seeking a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff must independently demonstrate a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm by applying the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief.
Facts:
- Perfect 10, Inc. creates and holds copyrights for photographic images of nude models.
- Perfect 10 distributes these images commercially through a password-protected, paid-subscription website.
- Google, Inc. operates a search engine that automatically copies and indexes publicly available images from the internet, making them searchable by the public.
- Google's search results and other services, like Blogger, displayed unauthorized copies of Perfect 10's copyrighted images, making them available to the public for free.
- Perfect 10's founder stated that the company's revenues declined from nearly $2 million per year to less than $150,000 per year, bringing the company close to bankruptcy.
- Perfect 10 claimed this financial decline was caused by potential subscribers being unwilling to pay for content that was freely available through Google's services.
Procedural Posture:
- Perfect 10, Inc. sued Google, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging copyright infringement.
- Perfect 10 moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Google's allegedly infringing activities.
- The district court denied Perfect 10's motion, ruling that it had not demonstrated a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm.
- Perfect 10, the appellant, appealed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff who demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a copyright infringement claim receive a presumption of irreparable harm when seeking a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Ikuta, Circuit Judge
No. A plaintiff who shows a likelihood of success on a copyright claim is not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. The Supreme Court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which rejected categorical rules for granting injunctions in patent cases, is equally applicable to copyright cases. The Copyright Act, like the Patent Act, uses permissive language stating that a court 'may' grant an injunction, indicating no congressional intent to depart from the traditional four-factor framework for equitable relief. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit's long-standing rule from Apple Computer, which created a presumption of irreparable harm, is effectively overruled. A plaintiff must independently prove all four factors, and here, Perfect 10 failed to establish a causal connection between Google's actions and its alleged irreparable harm, offering insufficient evidence that an injunction would prevent its financial collapse.
Analysis:
This decision officially abrogates the long-standing Ninth Circuit precedent that presumed irreparable harm in copyright cases where a plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits. By aligning with the Supreme Court's reasoning in eBay, the court significantly raises the bar for copyright holders seeking preliminary injunctions. Plaintiffs can no longer rely on a legal shortcut and must now provide concrete evidence demonstrating that they will suffer harm that cannot be compensated by monetary damages later. This makes obtaining immediate injunctive relief more difficult and costly for copyright owners, particularly in the context of online infringement.
