Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maureen Harrington, as representative of the estate of professional photographer Blaine Harrington III, filed a putative class action against Pinterest, Inc. on behalf of professional photographers whose federally registered copyrighted works were displayed in Pinterest’s notifications outside its main platform. The lawsuit followed a related case, Davis v. Pinterest, Inc., which addressed display of user-uploaded photographs alongside advertising on the Pinterest platform itself. In Davis, the Northern District granted summary judgment to Pinterest under DMCA Section 512(c), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2023 — but neither court reached infringement claims based on Pinterest’s notifications.
The Harrington case targets that gap. Harrington alleged that Pinterest infringed his copyright when it sent him a July 25, 2020 email notification that displayed his photograph “Waikiki Beach, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.” The notifications at issue include emails, in-app notifications, and mobile push notifications. Each contains hyperlinks that, when followed by user-side software (email programs, browsers, operating systems), retrieve and display images stored on Pinterest’s servers. After narrowing his claims to notifications outside the platform, Harrington proceeded to summary judgment on a single direct infringement count.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Pinterest’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor protects Pinterest’s notifications-based image display.
On the threshold statutory requirements from Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc., the court found Pinterest is a “service provider” under § 512(k)(1)(B); maintains a registered designated agent under § 512(c)(2); has implemented and communicated an adequate repeat-infringer policy with a strikes system under § 512(i)(1)(A); and accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures under § 512(i)(1)(B). Harrington’s reliance on his use of IPTC metadata did not change the analysis — he had not shown IPTC qualifies as a statutory “standard technical measure,” and even if it does, his own pleading admits Pinterest preserves it.
On the core Section 512(c) elements, the court held that Pinterest’s display of user-uploaded images in notifications is “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user.” Building on Davis II’s endorsement of Pinterest’s on-platform display, and the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Mavrix, Ventura, and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners, the court found that the notification system is “narrowly directed towards enhancing the accessibility” of stored user content. Notifications are functionally similar to feeds: they surface specific stored images to specific users in service of the user-storage function. The court rejected the contention that notifications are different in kind because they reach users outside the platform’s walled garden.
The court further found that Pinterest lacks actual or red-flag knowledge of specific infringement in the absence of compliant DMCA takedown notices, and that Harrington had not established Pinterest had the right and ability to control allegedly infringing activity in a way that satisfies the financial-benefit prong of § 512(c)(1)(B). Pinterest’s automated, neutral processes for selecting which Pins to surface in notifications are not the kind of human curatorial control that defeats safe harbor under Mavrix’s moderator analysis. Because Pinterest established every essential element of the affirmative defense beyond controversy, summary judgment was appropriate, and the court declined to reach the parallel § 512(d) defense or the broader hyperlinking and server-test debates from Davis.
Key Takeaways
- The DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor extends beyond on-platform display. Image notifications — including email, in-app, and push notifications — are protected when they are narrowly directed to enhancing the accessibility of user-stored content.
- The Ventura threshold checklist (service provider status, designated agent, adequate repeat-infringer policy, standard technical measures) remains the gating analysis. Service providers should keep their § 512(c)(2) agent registration current and document a strikes-based repeat infringer policy.
- IPTC metadata may not qualify as a “standard technical measure” under § 512(i)(2), and even if it does, preserving it (rather than stripping it) is enough to avoid an interference finding.
- Without compliant DMCA takedown notices, plaintiffs face an uphill battle establishing actual or red-flag knowledge of specific instances of infringement.
- Algorithmic, automated selection of stored content for delivery (whether to feeds or notifications) does not amount to the curatorial control that defeated safe harbor in Mavrix.
Why It Matters
The Northern District has been the primary battleground for DMCA safe-harbor doctrine because most major user-generated-content platforms are headquartered there. The Pinterest line of cases — Davis I, Davis II, and now Harrington — together stake out a broad reading of Section 512(c) that protects not only the platform display itself but also the notification systems that surface stored content to specific users.
For platform operators, the opinion confirms that pushing user-uploaded content into emails, push notifications, and in-app alerts will generally be considered an extension of the storage-and-access function rather than a new, unprotected republication. For professional photographers and other creators of frequently-pinned content, the practical takeaway is that DMCA takedown notice practice (or licensing) remains the central remedy. Standalone class-action infringement suits against platforms displaying stored content in derivative formats are likely to fail on safe harbor grounds even when they target previously unaddressed delivery channels.