Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Viral DRM LLC, Michael Brandon Clement, Ronald Brian Emfinger, Aaron Rigsby, Reed Timmer, and Noah Tomkinson are professional videographers of extreme weather events who hold registered copyrights in their videos. They alleged that defendants Desiree Cortes Lacomba and Milenio Diario, SA de CV copied and downloaded their copyrighted works from YouTube, removed copyright management information (CMI) including watermarks and metadata, and reuploaded infringing versions to YouTube. Plaintiffs further alleged defendants monetized the infringing videos, causing plaintiffs to lose licensing revenue and suffer reputational harm. Plaintiffs asserted claims for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, removal of CMI under DMCA § 1202(b), and providing false CMI under DMCA § 1202(a). After defendants failed to respond, the clerk entered default. Plaintiffs moved for default judgment seeking $1,225,000 in damages, $15,962.76 in attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief.
Service of process presented difficulties because defendants are located in Mexico, a Hague Convention signatory. The court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for alternative service via email and publication because plaintiffs had not attempted service through Mexico's Central Authority. Plaintiffs then attempted service through the Central Authority for over a year without success, renewed their motion for alternative service, and the court granted it on March 30, 2026. Defendants were served via email and publication but did not appear or respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court found subject matter jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction (Copyright Act and DMCA) and personal jurisdiction under both specific jurisdiction and consent theories. Defendants' counternotifications to YouTube expressly consented to jurisdiction in the district where YouTube is located (Northern District of California), which the court found sufficient under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D) and Moonbug Ent. Ltd. v. HappyKidsTV. Service was proper via email and publication after plaintiffs demonstrated good-faith efforts through Mexico's Central Authority. All seven Eitel factors weighed in favor of default judgment: plaintiffs would be prejudiced without recourse; the complaint sufficiently stated claims for copyright infringement and DMCA violations; no material factual disputes existed; the amount at stake was substantial but appropriate given willful infringement; defendants' non-appearance was not excusable neglect; and a decision on the merits was impractical.
On remedies, the court denied $50,000 in actual damages for two works as speculative. Plaintiff GWP's claimed licensing fees ($2,500 per 30-day license, $60,000 for two years) lacked supporting evidence such as prior licenses or market data. The court awarded $15,000 in statutory damages per work for 13 works (total $195,000), finding willful infringement based on intentional CMI removal and defendants' failure to defend, but declining the requested $75,000 per work due to insufficient evidence justifying the licensing rate and scarcity multiplier. For DMCA violations, the court awarded $4,000 per violation for 7 violations (total $28,000), below the $25,000 statutory maximum, citing Buschmann and Glynn. The court granted $13,460 in attorneys' fees and $2,502.76 in costs as reasonable under the lodestar method. Post-judgment interest was awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. A permanent injunction was granted limited to the works identified in Exhibit 1, satisfying all four eBay factors: irreparable reputational and competitive harm, inadequacy of monetary damages, no hardship to defendants from prohibiting unlawful conduct, and public interest in vindicating copyright holders' rights.
Key Takeaways
- Counternotifications submitted under DMCA § 512(g)(3)(D) that consent to jurisdiction in the district where the service provider (YouTube) is located can establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in copyright cases.
- Actual damages for copyright infringement require evidence of reasonable market value (e.g., prior licensing history); bare assertions of scarcity and high value without supporting evidence are insufficient.
- Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement may be enhanced but must bear a plausible relationship to actual harm; courts have wide discretion but will not award windfalls unsupported by evidence.
- DMCA statutory damages for CMI removal/false CMI violations are available per violation; courts may award amounts below the statutory maximum based on comparable cases and circumstances.
- Permanent injunctions in default judgment copyright cases are appropriate when defendants' failure to appear suggests ongoing infringement, and the injunction should be limited to the specific works at issue in the pleadings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that DMCA counternotifications can serve as a consent-based jurisdictional hook for foreign defendants who interact with U.S.-based platforms like YouTube, expanding the practical reach of U.S. copyright enforcement. The court's careful parsing of actual versus statutory damages illustrates the evidentiary burden plaintiffs face in proving lost licensing revenue—even in default judgment contexts where liability is established, damages require evidentiary support. The ruling also demonstrates how courts calibrate statutory damages in default cases: willfulness supports enhancement, but the absence of market evidence caps the award well below the statutory maximum. The limited injunction tailored to the specific works at issue (rather than all plaintiffs' copyrighted works) reflects Rule 54(c)'s constraint that relief not exceed the pleadings.