UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS HUNLEY; MATTHEW No. 22-15293 SCOTT BRAUER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly D.C. No. 3:21-cv- Situated, 03778-CRB Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION INSTAGRAM, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed July 17, 2023

Before: Jay S. Bybee and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges, and Richard D. Bennett, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bybee * The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 2 HUNLEY V. INSTAGRAM, LLC

SUMMARY **

Copyright

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by two photographers under the Copyright Act alleging that Instagram, LLC, violated their exclusive display right by permitting third-party sites to embed the photographers’ Instagram content. The panel held that, under Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007), Instagram could not be liable for secondary infringement because embedding a photo does not "display a copy" of the underlying image. Perfect 10 set forth the “Server Test,” which provides that a copy of a photographic image is not displayed when it is not fixed in a computer’s memory. The panel held that Perfect 10 did not restrict the application of the Server Test to a specific type of website, such as search engines. Arguments that Perfect10 is inconsistent with the Copyright Act are foreclosed by Perfect 10 outside of an en banc proceeding. And Perfect 10 was not effectively overturned by American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), which held that a streaming provider infringed broadcasters’ exclusive right of public performance.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HUNLEY V. INSTAGRAM, LLC 3

COUNSEL Solomon B. Cera (argued) and Pamela A. Markert, Cera LLP, San Francisco, California; Todd Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C., Woodland Hills, California; James H. Bartolomei III, Duncan Firm P.A., Little Rock, Arkansas; Bryan D. Hoben, Hoben Law, Peekskill, New York; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joseph C. Gratz (argued) and Ragesh K. Tangri, Morrison and Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California; Annie A. Lee, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, California; Allyson R. Bennett, Morrison and Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. Stephen M. Doniger, Doniger/Burroughs PC, Venice, California; Michael P. Manapol, Beverly Hills, California; Mickey H. Osterreicher and Alicia Wagner Calzada, National Press Photographers Association, Athens, Georgia; for Amici Curiae American Photographic Artists, National Press Photographers Association, The Graphic Artists Guild, and Five Other Photography and Media Licensing Organizations. Rebecca Tushnet, Lex Lumina PLLC, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Google LLC, Pinterest Inc., Twitter Inc., and the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Amy Mason Saharia and D. Shayon Ghosh, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Internet Society. Mitchell L. Stoltz and Cara Gagliano, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California; Alexandra Sternburg, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Washington, D.C.; Rachel B. Leswing, Authors 4 HUNLEY V. INSTAGRAM, LLC

Alliance, Berkeley, Cal