Corbis Corp. v. Amazon. Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that section 230 barred a Washington CPA claim about 12 Amazon’s publication of third-party content
• holding that Amazon is a service provider as defined in § 512(k)(1)(B) because it “operates web sites, provides retail and third party selling services to Internet users, and maintains computers to govern access to its web sites”
• stating in another context that notices are “.the most powerful evidence of a service provider’s knowledge”
• explaining that “Amazon operates web sites, provides retail and third party selling services to Internet users, arid maintains computers to govern access to its web sites,” and noting also that “Amazon, however, does not sell any of its own inventory on the zShops platform”
• denying plaintiff’s 13 motion for summary judgment where the certificates of registration did not provide details 14 necessary to confirm that the allegedly infringing image was protected by the registration, and 15 deposit material had not been produced
• “[Plaintiffs] decision to forego the DMCA notice provisions ... stripped it of the most powerful evidence of a service provider’s knowledge — actual notice of infringement from the copyright holder.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).