The intersection of anti-SLAPP laws and copyright infringement cases has become an increasingly complex area of jurisprudence, as evidenced by the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Young v. NeoCorText, Inc. This post examines the current landscape of anti-SLAPP legislation, its application in copyright-related disputes, and the potential implications of applying different state anti-SLAPP statutes to cases like Young v. NeoCorText.
Background on Anti-SLAPP Laws
Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws are designed to protect individuals and entities from meritless lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense. These statutes typically provide a mechanism for early dismissal of such suits and often include provisions for recovering attorneys’ fees for the prevailing party.The scope and strength of anti-SLAPP laws vary significantly from state to state. California’s anti-SLAPP statute, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, is widely regarded as one of the broadest and most protective in the nation. It applies to any act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.
Recent Trends in Anti-SLAPP Jurisprudence
Courts have grappled with the application of anti-SLAPP laws in various contexts, including defamation, consumer protection, and increasingly, intellectual property disputes. The trend has been towards a more nuanced approach, recognizing the need to balance the protection of free speech with the legitimate interests of plaintiffs in pursuing valid claims.
One significant trend has been the expansion of anti-SLAPP protections to cover a wider range of activities. Courts have interpreted “public interest” broadly, extending anti-SLAPP protections to matters of commercial speech and private disputes that have some connection to public issues.
Another trend has been the increasing scrutiny of the intersection between anti-SLAPP laws and federal causes of action, particularly in the realm of copyright law. This has led to complex questions of preemption and the applicability of state anti-SLAPP statutes in federal courts.
Young v. NeoCorText: A Case Study
The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Young v. NeoCorText, Inc. provides a valuable case study for examining the application of anti-SLAPP laws in the context of copyright-adjacent claims. In this case, Kyland Young brought a putative class action against NeoCorText, alleging violations of California’s right of publicity statute (Civil Code § 3344) for using his likeness to promote the Reface app.
NeoCorText moved to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its use of Young’s likeness was protected speech. The district court denied the motion, and NeoCorText appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, focusing its analysis on the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry: whether Young had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits. The court found that Young had plausibly alleged that NeoCorText knowingly used his likeness, that the claim was not preempted by the Copyright Act, and that NeoCorText had not established the transformative use defense as a matter of law.
Copyright Preemption and Anti-SLAPP Laws
A key issue in Young v. NeoCorText was whether Young’s right of publicity claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. The court’s analysis on this point is instructive for understanding the interplay between copyright law and state-law claims that may be subject to anti-SLAPP motions.
The Ninth Circuit applied a two-part test to determine copyright preemption:
- Whether the state law claim falls within the subject matter of copyright as described in 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
- Whether the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to the rights contained in 17 U.S.C. § 106.
The court concluded that Young’s claim did not fall within the subject matter of copyright because it concerned his name and likeness, “not a work of authorship”. Moreover, the court found that Young’s claim targeted the use of his likeness in advertising, which is not equivalent to the rights protected by copyright law.
This analysis demonstrates the nuanced approach courts must take when considering anti-SLAPP motions in cases that touch on copyright issues. It suggests that state law claims that are sufficiently distinct from copyright protections may survive both preemption and anti-SLAPP challenges.
Comparative Analysis: Kansas and Missouri Anti-SLAPP Laws
While Young v. NeoCorText was decided under California law, it is instructive to consider how the outcome might have differed under other states’ anti-SLAPP statutes, such as those of Kansas (K.S.A. § 60-5320) or Missouri (RSMo. § 537.528).
Kansas Anti-SLAPP Law
Kansas’s anti-SLAPP statute, K.S.A. § 60-5320, provides protections for speech made in connection with a public issue. However, it is narrower in scope than California’s statute. The Kansas law specifically excludes actions brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, if the statement at issue arises out of the sale or lease of goods or services.
Under Kansas law, NeoCorText might have had a more difficult time invoking anti-SLAPP protections. The company’s use of Young’s likeness in connection with its app could be seen as arising out of the sale of services, potentially excluding it from anti-SLAPP protection under Kansas law.
Missouri Anti-SLAPP Law
Missouri’s anti-SLAPP statute, RSMo. § 537.528, is even more limited in scope. It applies specifically to actions seeking money damages against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting.
Given its narrow focus on public hearings and meetings, Missouri’s anti-SLAPP law likely would not have applied to the facts of Young v. NeoCorText at all. This highlights the significant variations in anti-SLAPP protections across different jurisdictions and why when considering this issue, you should seek an attorney familiar with the laws in your jurisdiction.
Implications and Conclusions
As courts continue to grapple with these issues, we can expect further refinement of the jurisprudence surrounding anti-SLAPP laws and their application in copyright-adjacent cases. The trend towards more nuanced analysis of the intersection between free speech protections and intellectual property rights is likely to continue, potentially leading to more consistent application of anti-SLAPP laws across different types of claims and jurisdictions.
The Young v. NeoCorText decision illuminates the complex interplay between anti-SLAPP laws and copyright-adjacent claims. This case underscores the nuanced approach courts must take when evaluating the intersection of free speech protections and intellectual property rights.
Key takeaways:
- The application of anti-SLAPP laws in copyright-related disputes remains an evolving area of jurisprudence.
- Courts continue to scrutinize the boundaries between state law claims and federal copyright protections in anti-SLAPP motions.
- Outcomes of anti-SLAPP motions in intellectual property cases can vary significantly based on jurisdiction and specific anti-SLAPP statutes.
- Businesses should carefully consider the potential applicability of anti-SLAPP laws when litigating cases involving both state law claims and copyright issues.
As this legal landscape continues to evolve, individuals and businesses facing copyright infringement issues or potential SLAPP suits should seek the guidance of an experienced copyright attorney. Our firm’s seasoned legal team possesses the expertise to navigate these complex intersections of law, helping to ensure your rights are protected and your case is presented effectively. Don’t leave your intellectual property rights to chance – contact our experienced copyright attorneys today to discuss your case and explore your legal options.