{"id":365,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=365"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"harrington-pinterest-dmca-safe-harbor-notifications-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=365","title":{"rendered":"Harrington v. Pinterest \u2014 N.D. Cal. extends DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor to image notifications"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Maureen Harrington, et al. v. Pinterest, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:20-cv-05290<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Copyright infringement; DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor; service provider; storage at the direction of a user; email notifications; in-app and push notifications; Davis v. Pinterest<\/em>; Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal<\/em>; Ventura Content v. Motherless<\/em>; class action by professional photographers<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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\u2019s notifications outside its main platform. The lawsuit followed a related case, Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.<\/em>, which addressed display of user-uploaded photographs alongside advertising on the Pinterest platform itself. In Davis<\/em>, the Northern District granted summary judgment to Pinterest under DMCA Section 512(c), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2023 \u2014 but neither court reached infringement claims based on Pinterest\u2019s notifications.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cWaikiki Beach, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.\u201d 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\u2019s servers. After narrowing his claims to notifications outside the platform, Harrington proceeded to summary judgment on a single direct infringement count.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Edward J. Davila granted Pinterest\u2019s motion for summary judgment, finding that the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor protects Pinterest\u2019s notifications-based image display.<\/p>\n

On the threshold statutory requirements from Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc.<\/em>, the court found Pinterest is a \u201cservice provider\u201d under \u00a7 512(k)(1)(B); maintains a registered designated agent under \u00a7 512(c)(2); has implemented and communicated an adequate repeat-infringer policy with a strikes system under \u00a7 512(i)(1)(A); and accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures under \u00a7 512(i)(1)(B). Harrington\u2019s reliance on his use of IPTC metadata did not change the analysis \u2014 he had not shown IPTC qualifies as a statutory \u201cstandard technical measure,\u201d and even if it does, his own pleading admits Pinterest preserves it.<\/p>\n

On the core Section 512(c) elements, the court held that Pinterest\u2019s display of user-uploaded images in notifications is \u201cby reason of the storage at the direction of a user.\u201d Building on Davis II<\/em>\u2019s endorsement of Pinterest\u2019s on-platform display, and the Ninth Circuit\u2019s reasoning in Mavrix<\/em>, Ventura<\/em>, and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners<\/em>, the court found that the notification system is \u201cnarrowly directed towards enhancing the accessibility\u201d 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\u2019s walled garden.<\/p>\n

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 \u00a7 512(c)(1)(B). Pinterest\u2019s 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<\/em>\u2019s 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 \u00a7 512(d) defense or the broader hyperlinking and server-test debates from Davis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n