author: M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

text:
    Patrick MALONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Tim Judge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T3MEDIA, INC., DBA Paya.com, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-55630
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 17, 2017, Pasadena, California
    Filed April 5, 2017

      John M. DeStefano (argued), Robert B. Carey, and Leonard W. Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Kelli L. Sager (argued), Karen A. Henry, Eric M. Stahl, and Diana Palacios, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Ange-les, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Michael Rubin and P. Casey Pitts, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae the National Football League Players Association, the Major League Baseball Players Association, the National Hockey League Players’ Association, the National Basketball Players Association, and the Major League Soccer Players Union.
    Sean Sansiveri, Washington, D.C., as and for Amicus Curiae National Football League Players Association.
    David Prouty, New York, New York, as and for Amicus Curiae Major League Baseball Players Association.
    Don Zavelo, Toronto, Ontario, as and for Amicus Curiae Counsel National Hockey League Players’ Association.
    Gary Kohlman, New York, New York, as and for Amicus Curiae National Basketball Players Association.
    Jon Newman, Sherman Dunn Cohen Leifer & Yellig P.C., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Major League Soccer Players Union.
    Nancy E. Wolff, Cowan DeBaets Abra-hams & Sheppard LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Associated Press, Digital Media Licensing Association, Getty Images (US), Inc., Graphic Artists Guild, National Press Photographers Association, Inc., PhotoShelter, Inc., Professional Photographers of America, Shutterstock, Inc. and Zuma Press, Inc.
    Bruce D. Brown and Gregg P. Leslie, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 22 Media Organizations.
    Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and JOHN B. OWENS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.

       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

   OPINION

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Former student-athletes Patrick Malo-ney and Tim Judge allege that defendant T3Media, Inc. (T3Media) exploited their likenesses commercially by selling non-exclusive licenses permitting consumers to download photographs from the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Photo Library for non-commercial art use. Maloney and Judge assert statutory and common law publicity-right claims and an unfair competition claim under California law. The district court held that the federal Copyright Act preempts plaintiffs’ claims and granted T3Media’s special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs Patrick Maloney and Tim Judge are former NCAA student-athletes who played for the Catholic University (CU) men’s basketball team between 1997 and 2001. In their final year at CU, they made it all the way to the Division III national championship game, and helped lead the underdog Cardinals to an upset 76-62 victory over the William Paterson University Pioneers. The game’s drama was captured in a series of photographs depicting the plaintiffs in play, and later posing as members of the team with CU’s first-ever national championship trophy. The NCAA owns or controls the copyright to these photographs. It accordingly placed them into its collection, the NCAA Photo Library.

T3Media provides storage, hosting, and licensing services for a wide variety of digital content. In 2012, it contracted with the NCAA to store, host, and license the images in the NCAA Photo Library. The NCAA Photo Library itself contains thousands of photographs chronicling seventy years of NCAA sports history. Until 2014, T3Media made the photographs available to the public through its website, Paya, com.

Consumers could view digital thumbnails of the images contained in the NCAA Photo Library on Paya.com, and obtain for $20 to $30 a non-exclusive license permitting them to download a copy of a chosen photograph. Brief descriptions of the events depicted in the images accompanied the digital thumbnails. Users were also required to assent to a “Content License Agreement!’ in order to download one of the photographs. Pursuant to that agreement, consumers could “use a single copy of the image for non-commercial art use.” Consumers did not obtain “any right or license to use the name or likeness of any individual (including any athlete, announcer, or coach) appearing in the Content in connection with or as an express or implied endorsement of any product or service.”

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Central District of California in June 2014. They allege that T3Media exploited their names and likenesses commercially by selling photographs on Paya, com depicting their 2001 triumph. They purport to represent a putative class “of all current and former NCAA student-athletes whose names, images, and likenesses have been used without their consent by [T3Media] for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of the photographs themselves.” The complaint asserts claims for violation of California’s statutory right of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, common law right of publicity, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

In October 2014, T3Media moved to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. T3Media argued that the federal Copyright Act preempts plaintiffs’ claims, that they are barred by the First Amendment, and that California’s statutory exemption for news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts or accounts precludes liability for any publicity-right violations. The district court granted T3Media’s motion to strike on March 6, 2015, holding that the Copyright Act preempts plaintiffs’ claims, and declining to reach the other defenses.

According to the district court, the plaintiffs asserted rights that fell within the subject matter of copyright because their claims derived from the licensing of copyrighted photographs, which were original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression under the circumstances. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that a publicity-right claim involving a photograph is not subject to preemption. It distinguished between claims derived from “selling a copyrighted photograph containing an athlete’s likeness,” which it said require preemption, and claims based on “using the athlete’s likeness contained in the photograph for some other purpose,” which it said do not. The district court also concluded that plaintiffs were asserting rights equivalent to the exclusive rights contained in the Copyright Act because they did not identify a use of their names or likenesses “independent of the display, reproduction, and distribution of the copyrighted images in which they are depicted.” Lastly, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ UCL claim was derivative of the publicity-right claims, and thus concluded that it failed because the publicity-right claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery because the identified topics did not bear on the issue of preemption. The court also acknowledged that plaintiffs had been afforded “an opportunity to amend and to conduct at least minimal discovery,” so it struck the complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court later awarded attorneys’ fees in T3Media’s favor. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on April 24, 2015.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the district court’s grant of a special motion to strike de novo.” Graham-Suit v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 735 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district court’s decision not to permit additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule' of Civil Procedure 56(f) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001).

ANALYSIS

California’s anti-SLAPP statute permits defendants to file a “special motion to strike” any “cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). “The anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early dismissal of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming litigation.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). Its “burden-shifting mechanism” weeds out lawsuits “brought to deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing so.” Manzari v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 830 F.3d 881, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

At step one of the anti-SLAPP analysis, “the moving defendant must make a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs suit arises from an act in furtherance of the defendant’s constitutional right to free speech.” Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th Cir. 2013). At step two, assuming that showing has been made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to establish a reasonable probability that it will prevail on its elaim[s].” Id.

Here, plaintiffs concede that their suit arises from acts in furtherance of T3Me-dia’s right to free speech. That conclusion is sound because their claims stem from the publication and distribution of expressive photographs over the Internet. It is thus incumbent on plaintiffs to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on their challenged claims. T3Media insists that feat is impossible because the federal Copyright Act preempts plaintiffs’ claims. We agree.

Preemption under Section 301 of the Copyright Act

The Copyright Act affords copyright owners the “exclusive rights” to display, perform, reproduce, or distribute copies of a copyrighted work, to authorize others to do those things, and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. The copyright, in other words, gives the owner “the right to control the work,” including the decision whether or not to make the work available to the public. Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006).

Section 301 of the Act seeks “to preempt and abolish any rights under the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright and that extend to works,” so long as the' rights fall “within the scope of the Federal copyright law.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 130 (1976). “We have adopted a two-part test,” in accordance with section 301, “to determine whether a state law claim is preempted by the Act.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1137. First, we decide “whether the ‘subject matter’ of the state law claim falls within the subject matter of copyright as described in 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” Id. Second, assuming it does, we determine “whether the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to the rights contained in 17 U.S.C. § 106, which articulates the exclusive rights of copyright holders.” Id. at 1138.

Here, the parties joust solely with respect t.o step one and assert competing rules that seek to define the boundary between copyright preemption and state law rights of publicity. Plaintiffs maintain that photograph-based publicity-right claims categorically fall outside the subject matter of copyright because such claims protect an individual’s persona, which itself cannot be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. T3Media, by contrast, insists that the publicity right protects against the non-consensual use of one’s name or likeness on merchandise or in advertising. T3Media would permit publicity-right claims to proceed in those contexts, but find preemption where, as here, a likeness has been captured in an artistic work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use.

The right of publicity seeks to prevent commercial exploitation of an individual’s identity without that person’s consent. See Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 910 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that the “core” of the right of publicity is preventing “merchandising [of] a celebrity’s image without that person’s consent”); Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007, 1031 (3rd Cir. 2008) (stating that the “core” of the publicity right “is the right not to have one’s identity used in advertising”); Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905, 910 (7th Cir. 2005) (“The basis of a right of publicity claim concerns the message — whether the plaintiff endorses, or appears to endorse the product in question.”). Mindful of that premise, we conclude that a publicity-right claim is not preempted when it targets non-consensual use of one’s name or likeness on merchandise or in advertising. But when a likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use, a publicity-right claim interferes with the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, and is preempted by section 301 of the Copyright Act.

Here, Maloney and Judge do not contend that their likenesses were ever used on merchandise or in advertising. They challenge instead the copyright holder’s decision to distribute the copyrighted images themselves by selling consumers a non-exclusive license to download a chosen photograph from the NCAA Photo Library for noncommercial art use. Under these circumstances, the publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim challenge “control of the artistic work itself.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1142. Because plaintiffs seek to hold T3Media liable for exercising rights governed exclusively by copyright law, the claims are preempted by section 301 of the Copyright Act.

We derive these conclusions from the text of the Copyright Act, our precedents, the reasoning of other circuits, and a leading copyright treatise.

1. Step One — The subject matter of the state law claims falls within the subject matter of copyright.

a. The statutory text and our precedents.

The “subject matter of copyright” embodies “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). “Works of authorship include,” among other things, “pictorial” works. Id. §§ 102(a), (a)(5). Additionally, “[a] work is ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy ... is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of time of more than transitory duration.” Id. § 101.

Here, the publicity-right claims arise from the licensing of photographs, which plaintiffs concede are expressive “pictorial” works to which “[a] photographer contributes some original elements.” There is also no doubt that a photograph is “sufficiently permanent” to permit it to be perceived “for more than transitory duration.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The “ ‘subject matter’ of the state law claim[s]” — the photographs— therefore appears to fall within the subject matter of copyright. Laws, 448 F.3d at 1137.

Plaintiffs resist this conclusion by drilling down on the content of a publicity-right claim. Plaintiffs maintain that the right of publicity — as it pertains to photographs — protects against exploitation of an individual’s “likeness” or “persona.” Since those attributes “exist independent of any single photograph,” plaintiffs argue that photograph-based publicity-right claims categorically fall outside the “subject matter of copyright.” In other words, plaintiffs insist they do not assert any right in the particular photographic “works of authorship” at issue here. Instead, they claim that “the personal attributes protected by the right of publicity ... cannot be ‘fixed’ in copyrightable form in the same way as an actor’s performance or an author’s writings.”

Plaintiffs draw support for their position primarily from Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001). There, clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch developed a surfing theme for its catalog, which was the company’s “largest advertising vehicle.” Id. at 999. As part of the campaign, Abercrombie purchased photographs depicting the plaintiffs taking part in the 1965 Makaha International Surf Championship in Hawaii. Id. at 1000. Abercrombie used the photographs in a section of the catalog entitled “Surf Nek-kid.” Id. It also “decided to create t-shirts, exactly like those worn by the [plaintiffs] in the photograph, for sale in the upcoming issue.” Id. These “Final Heat Tees” appeared in the catalog for sale two pages after the pictures of the plaintiffs. Id. Abercrombie did not obtain at any time the plaintiffs’ permission to use the photographs in the catalog. Id.

We held that section 301 of the Copyright Act did not preempt plaintiffs’ publicity-right claims. Id. at 1005. We reasoned that “it is not the publication of the photograph itself, as a creative work of authorship, that is the basis for [plaintiffs’] claims, but rather, it is the use of the [plaintiffs’] likenesses and their names pictured in the published photograph.” Id. at 1003. We observed that “[a] person’s name or likeness is not a work of authorship within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 102.” Id. at 1004. “This is true,” we said, “notwithstanding the fact that [plaintiffs’] names and likenesses are embodied in a copyrightable photograph.” Id.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, Downing did not mint a categorical rule that publicity-right claims “relating to a likeness in a photograph” are not subject to preemption. Instead, we said that when the “use” of a likeness forms the “basis” of a publicity-right claim, the claim is not preempted. Downing, 265 F.3d at 1003-04. We did not state that a likeness is the “basis” of a publicity-right claim any time it is fixed in a photograph. The crux of the issue is thus deciding when a publicity-right claim seeks to vindicate misuse of an individual’s likeness, as opposed to merely interfering with the distribution, display, or performance of a copyrighted work.

On that point, plaintiffs rely almost entirely on the idea that a theoretical line should separate publicity-right claims based on photographs from other works protected by the Copyright Act. They insist that “[a] different preemption rule applies to right-of-publicity claims arising from performances in film and sound recordings as opposed to those arising from a mere likeness in a photograph,” and that the latter type of claim is not subject to preemption because “[ujnlike a performance, a person’s mere likeness is not a copyrightable contribution to a photograph.”

The text of the Copyright Act does not support plaintiffs’ construction. Section 301 draws no distinction among different types of copyrighted works when it comes to federal preemption. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). It directs attention to sections 102 and 103, which list the categories of works in which copyright protection subsists, suggesting that the same preemption rule applies to all works that are contained within the “subject matter of copyright.” Id. § 102. Given that “pictorial” works appear on that list alongside “motion pictures” and “sound recordings,” id. § 102(a)(5) — (7), there is no textual basis to carve out a preemption rule that applies solely to photographs.

Moreover, our precedents clarify that the distinction pertinent to the preemption of a publicity-right claim is not the type of copyrightable work at issue, but rather the way in which one’s name or likeness is affected by the use of the copyrighted work.

For example, in Downing, the publicity-right claim was not permitted to proceed simply because an individual’s likeness was fixed in a photograph. Indeed, it was “not the publication of the photograph itself, as a creative work of authorship,” that formed the basis of the publicity-right claim. 265 F.3d at 1003. Instead, it was the unauthorized “use of the [plaintiffs’] likenesses” to advertise Abercrombie products, and the creation of “t-shirts, exactly like those worn by the [plaintiffs] in the photograph, for sale” in Abercrombie’s catalog. Id. The plaintiffs sustained injury to their individual “personas” because their likenesses were exploited commercially without their consent. The plaintiffs were not seeking to use the right of publicity simply to prevent “publication” of an artistic, visual work.

Laws bolsters the interpretation that preemption turns on how a copyrighted photograph is used. In particular, Laws distinguished Downing as a case “involving] photographs used in advertising.” Id. at 1141 (emphasis added). We observed that “Abercrombie went well beyond the mere republication of the photograph .... Rather, it published the photo in connection with a broad surf-themed advertising campaign, identified the plaintiffs-surfers by name, and offered for sale the same t-shirts worn by the plaintiffs in the photo.” Id. Importantly, we said that “[Abercrombie] had suggested that the surfers had endorsed Abercrombie’s t-shirts. Accordingly, [Downing] concluded that ‘it is not the publication of the photograph itself ... that is the basis for [plaintiffs’] claims, but rather, it is the use of the [plaintiffs’] likenesses and their names pictured in the published photographs.’ ” Id. (quoting Downing, 265 F.3d at 1003) (emphasis added). Laws strongly implies that misuse of an individual’s likeness is the “basis” of a publicity-right claim when the name or image is exploited in advertising or on merchandise. It correspondingly implies that one’s likeness does not form the basis of a publicity-right claim when “the tort action challenges control of the artistic work itself,” id. at 1142, or involves “the mere republication of the photograph,” id. at 1141.

In further support of this interpretation, Laws appears to reject plaintiffs’ reading of Fleet v. CBS Inc., 50 Cal.App.4th 1911, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 (1996). In Fleet, the plaintiffs were actors in a film, White Dragon, to which the defendant, CBS, Inc., owned the copyright. Id. at 1914, 58 Cal. Rptr.2d 645. Having been denied certain compensation, plaintiffs sued CBS alleging that CBS “did not have permission to utilize their names, pictures, or likenesses in conjunction with any exploitation of the film.” Id. CBS released the film anyway and included a picture of one of the plaintiffs “on the packaging and [in] advertising materials.” Id. at 1915, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645. The court held that section 301 of the Copyright Act preempted the plaintiffs’ publicity-right claims. Id. at 1919, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645. It “agreefd] that as a general proposition Civil Code section 3344 is intended to protect rights which cannot be copyrighted.” Id. But it found that the “[plaintiffs’] analysis crumbles in the face of one obvious fact: their individual performances in the film White Dragon were copyrightable.” Id. Once the “performances were put on film, they became ‘dramatic work[s]’ ‘fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression.’ ” Id. (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)). “At that point,” the court said, “the performances came within the scope or subject matter of copyright law protection.” Id. at 1919-20, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645. Given that the publicity-right claims sought “only to prevent CBS from reproducing. and distributing [plaintiffs’] performances in the film,” the court concluded that “the[ ] claims must be preempted by federal copyright law.” Id. at 1919, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645.

Maloney and Judge read Fleet’s holding to be limited to preemption of dramatic performances, and not to include photographs, because it observes that “[t]he celebrity who has merely had his picture taken has not engaged in a ‘dramatic work’ or other ‘work of authorship,’ and, as Professor Nimmer said, would be afforded no protection under federal copyright law.” Id. at 1920, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645. They believe Fleet supports their line between photographs and dramatic performances because Fleet adds “if not for state law, [the celebrity who had his picture taken] would have no remedy against those who would misappropriate his image for their own gain.” Id. (emphasis added). The “state law,” of course, is the right of publicity, so plaintiffs read Fleet to support a dichotomy between likenesses in photographs and likenesses in other copyrightable works.

Laws explains that in Fleet, however, “[s]ince CBS’s use of plaintiffs’ likenesses did not extend beyond the use of the copyrighted material it held, there was no right of publicity at issue, aside from the actors’ performances.” Id. at 1143 (emphasis added). Laws does not read Fleet, as plaintiffs contend, to draw a line between photographs and performances. Instead, it endorses the practice of looking at how one’s likeness is affected by “the use of the copyrighted material”- — -whether that material is a photograph or something else.

Laws itself illustrates the same point. There, Debra Laws recorded a song, “Very Special,” to which Elektra obtained the copyright. Id. at 1136. Sony then obtained a license from Elektra to sample Laws’ recording of ‘Very Special” in a song by Jennifer Lopez and L.L. Cool J. Id. After the song became a hit, Laws brought publicity-right claims alleging that Sony’s use of ‘Very Special” misappropriated her name and voice. Id. We held that section 301 of the Copyright Act preempted the publicity-right claims. Id.

We distinguished cases where the defendant obtained a license to a song and then imitated the singer’s voice, which we said did not necessitate preemption because misappropriation of the voice itself was the subject of those publicity-right claims. Id. at 1140-41. By contrast, we concluded “it is clear that federal copyright law preempts a claim alleging misappropriation of one’s voice when the entirety of the allegedly misappropriated vocal performance is contained within a copyrighted medium.” Id. at 1141. Applying that rule, we concluded that Laws’s publicity-right claim “challenge[d] control of the artistic work itself’ and “could hardly be more closely related to the subject matter of the Copyright Act” because Sony had merely licensed copyrighted content and “did not use Laws’s image, name, or the voice recording in any promotional materials.” Id. at 1142.

Laws is significant in another respect— it considered the argument “that the subject matter of a copyright claim and a right of publicity claim are substantively different.” Id. at 1139. Like plaintiffs here, Laws argued “that a copyright claim protects ownership rights to a work of art, while a right of publicity claim concerns the right to protect one’s persona and likeness.” Id. Sony responded that “the subject matter of a right of publicity [claim] in one’s voice is not different from a copyright claim when the voice is embodied within a copyrighted sound recording.” Id. Sony added that “once a voice becomes part of a sound recording in a fixed tangible medium it comes within the subject matter of copyright.” Id.

We sided with Sony. We acknowledged that “California law recognizes an asserta-ble interest in the publicity associated with one’s voice.” Id. at 1141. But again, we held “that federal copyright law preempts a claim alleging misappropriation of one’s voice when the entirety of the allegedly misappropriated vocal performance is contained within a copyrighted medium.” Id.

Finally, our most recent decision in this area further buttresses the concept that whether a right of publicity claim is preempted turns on the way in which one’s name or likeness is affected by the use of a copyrighted work. In Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010), an actor who retained the copyright to the adult films in which he performed sued a video company for “replicating] and distributing] a number of [his] copyrighted DVDs without license or authority.” Id. at 1151. The actor brought publicity-right claims alleging that the defendants “misappropriated his name and ‘persona,’ in addition to his ‘dramatic performance.’ ” Id. at 1153. The actor contended that his publicity rights were offended by the “unauthorized reproduction, counterfeiting, and sale” of his copyrighted works. Id. Thus, he maintained, “the factual basis of his right of publicity claim was the unauthorized reproduction of his performance on the DVDs.” Id. at 1154.

We held that the Copyright Act preempted the publicity-right claims because the actor’s assertion that “defendants misappropriated his name and persona [wa]s based entirely on the misappropriation of the DVDs and [the actor’s] performance therein.” Id. at 1153. In other words, the actor was objecting to the unauthorized distribution and republication of a copyrighted work, not the exploitation of his likeness on an unrelated product or in advertising. We also considered the actor’s argument “that it is the use of his name and likeness on the covers of the counterfeit DVDs that violated his right of publicity.” Id. at 1154. We concluded that even under that theory, the publicity-right claims would still be preempted because “the pictures on the covers of the DVDs are ‘still shots’ of the copyrighted video performance.” Id.

In sum, our cases clarify that a publicity-right claim may proceed when a likeness is used non-consensually on merchandise or in advertising. But where a likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use, a publicity-right claim is little more than a thinly disguised copyright claim because it seeks to hold a copyright holder liable for exercising his exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

b. Persuasive authority.

A trio of cases out of the Third and Eighth Circuits lends further support to this conclusion. In Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3rd Cir. 2008), the Third Circuit considered a clash between “the right of publicity” and “the exploitation of a defendant’s copyright.” Id. at 1028. The plaintiff had narrated several NFL films, and the defendant re-purposed some of those copyrighted clips for use “in a cable-television production about the football video game ‘Madden NFL 06.’ ” Id. at 1011. Consistent with our holding that there is no categorical preemption rule separating photographs from everything else, the court stated that “[w]here a defendant in a right-of-publicity claim obtained a copyright in a work featuring the plaintiff, courts must separate legitimate exploitations of what Congress intended to be a copyright holder’s exclusive rights from particular uses that infringe the right of publicity.” Id. at 1028 (emphasis added).

Turning to that task, the court observed that “when defendants use the work ‘for the purposes of trade,’ such as in an advertisement, plaintiffs’ right-of-publicity claims have not been held to be preempted.” Id. at 1029 (citing Nimmer § 1.01[B][3][b][iv][l]). Conversely, “when defendants’ uses constitute ‘expressive works,’ right-of-publicity claims have been preempted.” Id.

Applying that distinction, the Third Circuit concluded that preemption was not appropriate because “[t]he NFL used the sound recordings of [the plaintiffs] voice in a television production promoting the video game.” Id. at 1030. This was “akin to advertising,” id. and the “core” of the publicity right, according to the court, “is the right not to have one’s identity used in advertising.” Id. at 1031.

In Ray v. ESPN, Inc., 783 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2015), the Eighth Circuit applied the same distinction that guided the Third Circuit in Facenda. The plaintiff in Ray was a professional wrestler whose matches were filmed. Id. at 1141. Defendant ESPN re-telecast those films without obtaining the plaintiffs consent. Id. at 1141-42. The court found that the filming of the plaintiffs wrestling performances “clearly generated” an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Id. at 1143. It thus concluded that the subject matter of the publicity-right claim fell within the subject matter of copyright because the claim was based on the distribution of copyrighted material. Id. In response to the plaintiffs argument that misuse of his likeness was the “true focal point” of the case, the court maintained that the publicity-right claim was preempted because “ESPN did not use [the plaintiffs] likeness or name in an advertisement without his permission to promote its commercial products.” Id. at 1143-44 (internal quotation mark omitted).

A year later, the Eighth Circuit revisited the issue in Dryer v. National Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016). There, three NFL players argued that their publicity rights were violated by use of their game footage in various NFL films, which subsequently were licensed and broadcast to the public. Id. at 941. They maintained that their “performances in football games” were “part of their identities rather than ‘fixed’ works eligible for copyright protection.” Id. at 942. The court acknowledged that athletic performances are not copyrightable, but found “the Copyright Act specifically includes within its purview fixed recordings of such live performances.” Id. Continuing, the court observed that “a right-of-publicity suit challenging the use of a copyrighted work in a commercial advertisement could have purposes unrelated to the aims of copyright law.” Id. at 943 (emphasis added). But it said that “[w]hen a right-of-publicity suit challenges the expressive, non-commercial use of a copyrighted work, ... that suit seeks to subordinate the copyright holder’s right to exploit the value of that work to the plaintiffs interest in controlling the work’s dissemination.” Id. Because the plaintiffs “d[id] not challenge the NFL’s use of their likenesses or identities in any context other than the publication of th[e] game footage,” the court held that the right-of-publicity claims fell within the subject matter of copyright. Id. at 942.

A leading copyright treatise invoked by the Third and Eighth Circuits further bolsters our conclusion. Nimmer on Copyright suggests that the right of publicity should be construed in accordance with the Restatement of Unfair Competition, “which limits liability to misappropriation for the purposes of trade.” See Nimmer § 1.01[B][3][b][iv] (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Restatement, “[t]he name, likeness, and other indi-cia of a person’s identity are used ‘for purposes of trade’ ” if they are used “in advertising the user’s goods or services, or are placed on merchandise marketed by the user, or are used in connection with services rendered by the user.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 47. Use for “purposes of trade” would not ordinarily include “the use of a person’s identity in news reporting, commentary, entertainment, works of fiction or nonfiction, or in advertising that is incidental to such uses.” Id.

The “use for trade” considerations can almost perfectly distinguish between the cases finding preemption and those permitting publicity-right claims to proceed. As our precedents reflect, the crucial distinction is not between categories of copyrightable works, but how those copyrighted works are used.

c. Application

As noted, Maloney and Judge do not allege that their names and likenesses were ever used in connection with the sale of any merchandise. Nor do they contend that their likenesses were ever used in any advertising. Instead, the copyrighted images themselves were licensed to individuals for “non-commercial art use.” Moreover, the licensees of the Maloney and Judge photos did not obtain “any right or license to use the name or likeness of any individual ... in connection with or as an express or implied endorsement of any product or service.”

Plaintiffs’ publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim challenge “control of the artistic work itself.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1142. Pursuant to Laws, the subject matter of the state law claims therefore falls within the subject matter of copyright.

We believe that our holding strikes the right balance by permitting athletes to control the use of their names or likenesses on merchandise or in advertising, while permitting photographers, the visual content licensing industry, art print services, the media, and the public, to use these culturally important images for expressive purposes. Plaintiffs’ position, by contrast, would give the subject of every photograph a de facto veto over the artist’s rights under the Copyright Act, and destroy the exclusivity of rights that Congress sought to protect by enacting the Copyright Act.

2. Step Two — The rights plaintiffs assert are equivalent to rights within the general scope of copyright.

At the second step, we determine whether the rights plaintiffs assert under state law are “equivalent to rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 of the Copyright Act.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1143 (quoting Del Madera Props. v. Rhodes & Gardner, 820 F.2d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 1987)). Section 106 affords copyright owners the “exclusive rights” to display, perform, reproduce, or distribute copies of a copyrighted work, to authorize others to do those things, and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. “To survive preemption, the state cause of action must protect rights which are qualitatively different from the copyright fights. The state claim must have an extra element which changes the nature of the action.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1143 (quoting Del Madera, 820 F.2d at 977).

As a threshold matter, plaintiffs waived any argument that the rights they assert are not equivalent to rights within the general scope of copyright. They did not argue the issue in their briefs, and we do not review issues raised only by amicus curiae. Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1998). Even had they made the argument, the district court nonetheless was correct to conclude that the rights plaintiffs assert are no different than the rights contained within the general scope of the Copyright Act.

The complaint asserts statutory and common law publicity-right claims, and a claim for a violation of the UCL. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify any use of their likenesses independent of the display, reproduction, and distribution of the copyrighted material in which they are depicted. We have held that under those circumstances, none of plaintiffs’ claims is qualitatively different from a copyright claim. See Laws, 448 F.3d at 1144 (holding that “[t]he mere presence of an additional element (‘commercial use’) in section 3344 is not enough to qualitatively distinguish [a] right of publicity claim from a claim in copyright”); see also id. at 1143-44 (“squarely rejecting]” the argument that a UCL claim is qualitatively different than a copyright claim under circumstances analogous to here).

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances presented here, the “ ‘subject matter’ of the state law claim[s] falls within the subject matter of copyright” and “the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to the rights contained in 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1137, 1138. The federal Copyright Act therefore preempts the plaintiffs’ publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim. In light of that holding, plaintiffs’ cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability ' of prevailing on their challenged claims. The district court did not err in granting T3Media’s special motion to strike.

We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting T3Media’s special motion to strike and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims without leave to amend. Appellants shall bear costs on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).

      . For example, the caption accompanying a picture of Magic Johnson provided: "Michigan State's Earvin 'Magic' Johnson (33) looks pleased with his performance during the NCAA National Basketball Championships in Salt Lake City, UT, Special Events Center. Johnson was named Most Outstanding Player during the tournament with 17 rebounds and 53 points. Michigan State defeated Indiana State 75-64 to win the title.”

      . "A common law cause of action for appropriation of name or likeness may be pleaded by alleging (1) the defendant’s use of the plaintiffs identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant’s advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury.” Fleet v. CBS, Inc., 50 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1918, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 (1996). In addition, "to plead the statutory remedy provided in Civil Code section 3344, there must also be an allegation of a knowing use of the plaintiff’s name, photograph or likeness for purposes of advertising or solicitation or purchases.” Id. Further, "judicial construction of section 3344 has imposed an additional requirement. A ‘direct’ connection must be alleged between the use and the commercial purpose.” Id. Lastly, plaintiffs’ UCL claim is derivative of their publicity-right claims because it invokes alleged publicity-right violations as its basis.

      . The anti-SLAPP statute recognizes four categories of protected speech and petitioning, including “any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest,” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(3), and "any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest,” id. § 425.16(e)(4). T3Media’s conduct fits within the former category because it posted the photographs on Paya.com and "[w]eb sites accessible to the public ... are ‘public forums’ for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.” Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33, 41 n.4, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55, 146 P.3d 510 (2006); see also Safari Club Int’l v. Rudolph, 845 F.3d 1250, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (defendant’s posting of video on YouTube satisfied § 425.16(e)(4)). T3Media’s conduct also fits within the latter category because the photographs memorialize cherished moments in NCAA sports history, and California defines “an issue of public interest” broadly. See Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042-44, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 (2008) (concluding an issue of public interest is "any” issue in which the public is interested); Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., and Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 920, 924, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81 (2003).

      . Amici Associated Press et al. insist that “[plhotographers use their tools and artistic judgment by manipulating lighting, angle, positioning, and timing.”

      . See also Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01[B][l][c] (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed. 2016) [hereinafter "Nim-mer”] ("The ‘work’ that is the subject of the right of publicity is the persona, i.e., the name and likeness of a celebrity or other individual. A persona can hardly be said to constitute a ‘writing’ of an ‘author’ within the meaning of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.”); J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 11:52 (2d ed. 2016) [hereinafter "McCarthy”] ("The picture is not the person .... There is only one underlying 'persona' of a person protected by the right of publicity.... [T]he exact image in [a] photograph is not the underlying ‘right’ asserted in a right of publicity case.”).

      . Downing relied on two other decisions that plaintiffs likewise rely on here. In Brown v. Ames, 201 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 2000), a record company misappropriated "the names and likenesses” of "individual blues musicians, songwriters, [and] music producers" on the company’s CD’s, tapes, catalogs, and posters. Id. at 656-57. The Fifth Circuit found that preemption does not apply because "the tort of misappropriation of a name or likeness protects a person’s persona[,]" and "[a] persona does not fall within the subject matter of copyright.” Id. at 658. In KNB Enterprises v. Matthews, 78 Cal.App.4th 362, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 (2000), the defendant displayed some of the plaintiff’s erotic photographs on its website to attract viewers to the site, where it charged customers a monthly fee to view similar photographs. Id. at 366, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 713. The court declined to find that the plaintiffs' publicity-right claims were subject to preemption "because a human likeness is not copyrightable, even if captured in a photograph.” Id. at 365, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 713. Neither decision supports plaintiffs’ argument here because both cases involve the use of an individual’s likeness on unrelated merchandise or in advertising.

      . Section 301(a) provides that
      On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
      17U.S.C.§ 301(a) (emphasis added).

      . Laws also distinguished Brown — a case plaintiffs rely on — as one where preemption was not appropriate because the likenesses were used on "compact disks, tapes, catalogs, and posters.” Laws, 448 F.3d at 1141 (citing Brown, 201 F.3d at 656-57).

      . The fact that the non-exclusive licenses were sold for a profit and their price does not alter our analysis. The copyrighted works in Laws and Jules Jordan were also sold, but the publicity-right claims were still preempted. See Laws, 448 F.3d at 1136; Jules Jordan, 617 F.3d at 1150-51. More to the point, T3Me-dia’s decision to license expressive works for a fee does not change the fact that the publicity-right claims target the display and distribution of copyrighted photographs for personal use. Moreover, copyright holders are allowed to commercially exploit their copyrights by exercising their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

      . The Third Circuit also ”emphasize[d] that courts must circumscribe the right of publicity so that musicians, actors, and other voice artists do not get a right that extends beyond commercial advertisements to other works of artistic expression.” Facenda, 542 F.3d at 1032. Should courts neglect that task, then "[i]n addition to copyrights, entertainment companies would need additional licenses for artists’ rights of publicity in every case.” Id. Facenda proceeded with the above analysis under the banner of "conflict preemption,” but it treated the framework as similarly applicable to the context of express preemption under section 301. See id. at 1029 n.13. As to express preemption, Facenda found the publicity-right claim was directed to the plaintiff's actual voice, and thus fell outside the subject matter of copyright. Id. at 1027-28.

      . This holding belies plaintiffs’ assertion that their claims should not be preempted because one’s likeness is not a "copyrightable contribution to photograph.” In Dryer, the athletic performances were likewise not copyrightable contributions, but the claims still fell within the purview of copyright because the performances were fixed in a film — a tangible medium of expression.

      . The cases finding preemption concern the display or reproduction of copyrighted expressive works. See, e.g., Jules Jordan, 617 F.3d at 1150-51 (distribution of film in which plaintiff acted); Laws, 448 F.3d at 1136 (licensing of song in which plaintiff sang); Fleet, 50 Cal.App.4th at 1914, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 (distribution of movie in which plaintiff acted).

      . These cases involved an imitation of Bette Midler's voice to advertise Ford Cars, Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1988), an imitation of Tom Waits’ voice to advertise Doritos, Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 1992), a robot resembling Vanna White to advertise televisions, White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992), robots resembling characters from Cheers used to draw customers to a bar, Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 809 (9th Cir. 1997), a photograph of a model used to advertise hair products, Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905, 907 (7th Cir. 2005), a photograph of surfers used to advertise and sell Abercrombie clothes, Downing, 265 F.3d at 999-1000, images of The Three Stooges used to sell t-shirts, Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 393, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797 (2001), use of an announcer’s voice to promote a video game, Facenda, 542 F.3d at 1011, and use of student-athlete likenesses to sell a video game, Keller v. Elec. Arts Inc. (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation), 724 F.3d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir. 2013).

      .The McCarthy treatise echoes this conclusion. See McCarthy § 11:52 (“In some unusual cases, the use of an image of a person may be preempted by copyright law because the only use the defendant is charged with is copying or selling the image itself with no use in advertising and no use to enhance a separate product. For example, a photo archive that merely sells reproductions of photos of athletes is not infringing the right of publicity of the pictured athletes. Since the vast majority of athletes (both professional and amateur) do not own copyright in such photos, they have no right to control the mere reproduction and sale of their photos per se.”).

      . Notably, Laws expressed a similar concern when describing Fleet. It said that “the plaintiffs’ right of publicity claim was a question of control over the distribution ... of a movie CBS owned.” 448 F.3d at 1143. Thus, "[h]ad the court [not found preemption], each actor could claim that any showing of the film violated his right to control his image and persona.” Id. We are similarly mindful of the potential for that outcome here.

      . The elements of a common law right-of-publicity claim are subsumed within those of a statutory claim. See Fleet, 50 Cal.App.4th at 1918, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 645. Thus, Laws necessarily concluded that the singer's common law publicity-right claim asserted rights equivalent to copyright rights. See Laws, 448 F.3d at 1136 (noting singer brought both statutory and common law publicity-right claims).

      . The district court also did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to permit additional discovery. The identified topics did not bear on the issue of preemption. Moreover, given that the claims are preempted, any additional discovery would have been futile. We also do not reach T3Media’s other asserted defenses in light of our holding regarding preemption.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    MAVRIX PHOTOGRAPHS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIVEJOURNAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56596
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Submitted October 7, 2016, Pasadena, California
    Filed April 7, 2017

      Peter Afrasiabi (argued), Christopher W. Arledge, and John Tehranian, One LLP, Newport Beach, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Wayne Mitchell Barsky (argued), Blaine H. Evanson, and Brandon J. Stoker, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HARRY PREGERSON, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and MORGAN CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Mavrix Photographs (“Mavrix”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant LiveJournal. Mavrix sued LiveJournal for posting twenty of its copyrighted photographs online. The district court held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) § 512(c) safe harbor protected LiveJournal from liability because Mavrix’s photographs were posted at the direction of the user. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).

To be eligible at the threshold for the § 512(c) safe harbor, LiveJournal must show that the photographs were posted at the direction of the user. Although users submitted Mavrix’s photographs to LiveJournal, LiveJournal posted the photographs after a team of volunteer moderators led by a LiveJournal employee reviewed and approved them. Whether these photographs were truly “posted at the direction of the user,” or instead whether LiveJournal itself posted the photographs, depends on whether the acts of the moderators can be attributed to LiveJournal. The issue we must decide is whether the common law of agency applies to LiveJournal’s safe harbor defense.' The district court ruled that the common law of agency does not apply to this analysis. We disagree and conclude that it does. As there are genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators are LiveJournal’s agents, we reverse the district court’s summary judgment and remand for trial.

Because the district court ruled on the remaining elements of the safe harbor, we also proceed to discuss those elements in order to provide guidance to the district court and parties on remand. Finally, we vacate the district court’s order denying discovery of the moderators’ identities because the agency determination may affect this analysis.

I.

LiveJournal

LiveJournal is a social media platform. Among other services, it allows users to create and run thematic “communities” in which they post and comment on content related to the theme. LiveJournal communities can create their own rules for submitting and commenting on posts.

LiveJournal set up three types of unpaid administrator roles to run its communities. “Moderators” review posts submitted by users to ensure compliance with the rules. “Maintainers” review and delete posts and have the authority to remove moderators and users from the community. Each community also has one “owner” who has the authority of a maintainer, but can also remove maintainers.

LiveJournal protects against copyright infringement in its communities through various mechanisms. LiveJournal follows the formal notice and takedown procedures outlined in the DMCA by designating an agent and form to report infringement, and by promptly removing infringing posts and prohibiting repeat abusers from the community. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(C). LiveJournal’s Terms of Sendee instructs users not to “[ujpload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights.”

Oh No They Didn’t! (“ONTD”)

ONTD is a popular LiveJournal community which features up-to-date celebrity news. Users submit posts containing photographs, videos, links, and gossip about celebrities’ lives. ONTD moderators review and publicly post some of the submissions. Other users engage in conversations about the celebrity news in the comments section of each post. For example, one of the ONTD posts at issue contained photographs that Mavrix had taken which appeared to show that super-celebrity Bey-oncé was pregnant. Users speculated in the comments section of that post that Beyoncé was indeed pregnant.

Like other LiveJournal communities, ONTD created rules for submitting and commenting on posts. ONTD’s rules pertain to both potential copyright infringement and substantive guidance for users. For example, one rule instructs users to “[i]nclude the article and picture(s) in your post, do not simply refer us off to another site for the goods.” Another rule provides “Keep it recent. We don’t need a post in 2010 about Britney Spears shaving her head.” ONTD’s rules also include a list of sources from which users should not copy material. The sources on the list have informally requested that ONTD stop posting infringing material. ONTD has also automatically blocked all material from one source that sent ONTD a cease and desist letter.

ONTD has nine moderators, six maintainers, and one owner. ONTD users submit proposed posts containing celebrity news to an internal queue. Moderators review the submissions and publicly post approximately one-third of them. Moderators review for substance, approving only those submissions relevant to new and exciting celebrity news. Moderators also review for copyright infringement, pornography, and harassment.

When ONTD was created, like other LiveJournal communities, it was operated exclusively by volunteer moderators. Li-veJournal was not involved in the day-today operation of the site. ONTD, however, grew in popularity to 52 million page views per month in 2010 and attracted LiveJour-nal’s attention. By a significant margin, ONTD is LiveJournal’s most popular corn-munity and is the only community with a “household name.” In 2010, LiveJournal sought to exercise more control over ONTD so that it could generate advertising revenue from the popular community. LiveJournal hired a then active moderator, Brendan Delzer, to serve as the community’s full time “primary leader.” By hiring Delzer, LiveJournal intended to “take over” ONTD, grow the site, and run ads on it.

As the “primary leader,” Delzer instructs ONTD moderators on the content they should approve and selects and removes moderators on the basis of their performance. Delzer also continues to perform moderator work, reviewing and approving posts alongside the other moderators whom he oversees. While Delzer is paid and expected to work full time, the other moderators are “free to leave and go and volunteer their time in any way they see fit.” In his deposition, Mark Ferrell, the General Manager of LiyeJournal’s U.S. office, explained that Delzer “acts in some capacities as a sort of head maintainer” and serves in an “elevated status” to the other moderators. Delzer, on the other hand, testified at his deposition that he does not serve as head moderator and that ONTD has no “primary leader.”

Mavrix

Mavrix is a celebrity photography company specializing in candid photographs of celebrities in tropical locations. The company sells its photographs to celebrity magazines. According to Mavrix, infringement of its photographs is particularly devastating to its business model. Since Mavrix’s photographs break celebrity news, such as the pregnancy of Beyoncé, infringing posts on sites like ONTD prevent Mavrix from profiting from the sale of the photographs to celebrity magazines.

Procedural History

Mavrix filed an action for damages and injunctive relief against LiveJournal alleging copyright infringement on the basis of twenty Mavrix photographs posted on ONTD. ONTD posted the photographs in seven separate posts between 2010 and 2014. Some of these photographs contained either a generic watermark or a specific watermark featuring Mavrix’s website “Mavrixonline.com.” To the best of his recollection, Delzer did not personally approve the seven posts. LiveJournal has no technological means of determining which moderator approved any given post. Mav-rix did not utilize LiveJournal’s notice and takedown procedure to notify LiveJournal of the infringements. When Mavrix filed this lawsuit, LiveJournal removed the posts.

During discovery, Mavrix filed two motions to compel responses to its interrogatories seeking the identity of the ONTD moderators. The magistrate judge denied the first motion, finding that Mavrix had not met and conferred with LiveJournal in good faith. The magistrate judge denied the second motion to compel because Mav-rix failed to notify the anonymous parties of the pending motion. Mavrix moved the district court for review of the magistrate judge’s order, which the district court denied on the basis of the moderators’ First Amendment right to anonymous internet speech.

LiveJournal moved for summary judgment on the basis of the § 512(c) safe harbor. The district court granted LiveJ-ournal’s motion and denied Mavrix’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the § 512(c) safe harbor shielded LiveJournal from liability for copyright infringement. Mavrix timely appealed.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Curley v. City of N. Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629, 631 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2013)). We must determine, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.” Id.

The district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider a magistrate judge’s pretrial discovery order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) will be reversed only if “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Os-band v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir.2002)).

III.

A.

The DMCA strikes a balance between the interests of “copyright holders in benefitting from their labor; ... entrepreneurs in having the latitude to invent new technologies without fear of being held liable if their innovations are used by others in unintended infringing ways; and those of the public in having access [to] both.... ” Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 1037 (9th Cir. 2013). The DMCA balances these interests by requiring service providers to take down infringing materials when copyright holders notify them of the infringement and by limiting service providers’ liability for unintentional infringement through several safe harbors. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004).

The DMCA established four safe harbors to “provide protection from liability for: (1) transitory digital network communications; (2) system caching; (3) information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users; and (4) information location tools.” Id. at 1076-77 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d)). LiveJournal claimed protection from damages under the § 512(c) safe harbor for “infringement of copyright by reason of the storage [of material] at the direction of a user.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). To be eligible at the threshold for the § 512(c) safe harbor, a service provider must show that the infringing material was posted “at the direction of the user.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). If it meets that threshold requirement, the service provider must then show that (1) it lacked actual or red flag knowledge of the infringing material; and (2) it did not receive a “financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity.” Id. Because the § 512(c) safe harbor is an affirmative defense, LiveJournal must establish “beyond controversy every essential element,” and failure to do so will render LiveJournal ineligible for the § 512(c) safe harbor’s protection. See S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003); see also UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2013).

B.

1.

LiveJournal must make a threshold showing that Mavrix’s photographs were posted on ONTD at the direction of the user. The district court held that although moderators screened and publicly posted all of the ONTD posts, the posts were at the direction of the user. The district court focused on the users’ submission of infringing photographs to LiveJournal rather than LiveJournal’s screening and public posting of the photographs. A different safe harbor, § 512(a), protects service providers from liability for the passive role they play when users submit infringing material to them. 17 U.S.C. § 512(a); see, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1116 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing infringing material passively and temporarily placed on a computer server as within the § 512(a) safe harbor). The § 512(c) safe harbor, however, focuses on the service provider’s role in publicly posting infringing material on its site. See Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1018; S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 43-44 (1998). Contrary to the district court’s view, posting rather than submission is the critical inquiry. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing between the service provider’s passive role when users “upload[] infringing content onto [] servers” and “any sort of active role” on the basis of who “caused the images to be displayed”). In the context of this case, that inquiry turns on the role of the moderators in screening and posting users’ submissions and whether their acts may be attributed to LiveJournal.

2.

Mavrix, relying on the common law of agency, argues that the moderators are Live Journal’s agents, making LiveJournal liable for the moderators’ acts. The district court erred in rejecting this argument.

“[Statutes are presumed not to disturb the common law, ‘unless the language of a statute [is] clear and explicit for this purpose.’ ” State Eng’r of Nev. v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va., 464 U.S. 30, 35, 104 S.Ct. 304, 78 L.Ed.2d 29 (1983)). Pursuant to this principle, the Supreme Court and this court have applied common law in cases involving federal copyright law, including the DMCA. The Supreme Court has applied the common law of agency in interpreting the Copyright Act. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751-52, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989). We have applied the common law of vicarious liability in analyzing the DMCA, reasoning that Congress intended that the DMCA’s “limitations of liability” be interpreted “under existing principles of law.” Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076-77 (quoting S. Rep. 105-190, at 19 (1998)). We have also applied the common law of agency to determine a service provider’s intent to infringe under the DMCA. Fung, 710 F.3d at 1038.

Along with other courts, we have applied agency law to questions much like the question of LiveJournal’s liability for the moderators’ acts. We applied agency law to determine whether a service provider was responsible under the DMCA for copyright infringement by its employees. Fung, 710 F.3d at 1038. The Tenth Circuit applied agency law to determine whether a service provider was responsible under the DMCA for copyright infringement by its contractors. See BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Clarity Dig. Grp., LLC, 820 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2016). Finally, a district court applied agency law to determine whether a service provider was responsible under the DMCA for the acts of moderators. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. CV 06-5578 SVW(JCx), 2009 WL 6355911, at *13 n.21 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009), aff'd in part, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013). We therefore have little difficulty holding that common law agency principles apply to the analysis of whether a service provider like LiveJournal is liable for the acts of the ONTD moderators.

3.

In light of the summary judgment record, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the moderators are LiveJournal’s agents. The factual dispute is evident when we apply common law agency principles to the evi-dentiary record.

“Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a ‘principal’) manifests assent to another person (an ‘agent’) that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.” Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01 (Am. Law Inst. 2006). For an agency relationship to exist, an agent must have authority to act on behalf of the principal and “[t]he person represented [must have] a right to control the actions of the agent.” Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 1.01, cmt. c (Am. Law Inst. 2006).

An agency relationship may be created through actual or apparent authority. Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.01, 2.03, 4.01 (Am. Law Inst. 2006)), cert: granted, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2311, 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015), and aff'd, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 663, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016). Actual authority arises through “the principal’s assent that the agent take action on the principal’s behalf.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 3.01 (Am. Law Inst. 2006). LiveJournal argues that it did not assent to the moderators acting on its behalf. Mavrix, however, presented evidence that LiveJournal gave its moderators explicit and varying levels of authority to screen posts. Although LiveJournal calls the moderators “volunteers,” the moderators performed a vital function in LiveJ-ournal’s business model. There is evidence in the record that LiveJournal gave moderators express directions about their screening functions, including criteria for accepting or rejecting posts. Unlike other sites where users may independently post content, LiveJournal relies on moderators as an integral part of its screening and posting business model. LiveJournal also provides three different levels of authority: moderators review posts to ensure they contain celebrity gossip and not pornography or harassment, maintainers delete posts and can remove moderators, and owners can remove maintainers. Genuine issues of material fact therefore exist regarding whether the moderators had actual authority.

Apparent authority arises by “a person’s manifestation that another has authority to act with legal consequences for the person who makes the manifestation, when a third party reasonably believes the actor to be authorized and the belief is traceable to the manifestation.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 3.03 (Am. Law Inst. 2006); see also Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp. v. Friendly Broad. Co., 414 F.2d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 1969). “The principal’s manifestations giving rise to apparent authority may consist of direct statements to the third person, directions to the agent to tell something to the third person, or the granting of permission to the agent to perform acts ... under circumstances which create in him a reputation of authority....” Hawaiian Paradise Park, 414 F.2d at 756.

LiveJournal selected moderators and provided them with specific directions. Mavrix presented evidence that LiveJour-nal users may have reasonably believed that the moderators had authority to act for LiveJournal. One user whose post was removed pursuant to a DMCA notice complained to LiveJournal “I’m sure my entry does not violate any sort of copyright law.... I followed [ONTD’s] formatting standards and the moderators checked and approved my post.” The user relied on the moderators’ approval as a manifestation that the post complied with copyright law, and the user appeared to believe the moderators acted on behalf of LiveJournal. Such reliance is likely traceable to LiveJ-ournal’s policy of providing explicit roles and authority to the moderators. Accordingly, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether there was an apparent authority relationship.

Whether an agency relationship exists also depends on the level of control a principal exerts over the agent. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2657-58, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (referring to control as one of “the basic features of an agency relationship”); United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495, 505 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the “the extent of control exercised by the employer” is the “essential ingredient” in determining an agency relationship) (quoting NLRB v. Friendly Cab Co., 512 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2008)). Evidence presented by Mavrix shows that LiveJournal maintains significant control over ONTD and its moderators. Delzer gives the moderators substantive supervision and selects and removes moderators on the basis of their performance, thus demonstrating control. Delzer also exercises control over the moderators’ work schedule. For example, he added a moderator from Europe so that there would be a moderator who could work while other moderators slept. Further demonstrating LiveJournal’s control over the moderators, the moderators’ screening criteria derive from rules ratified by LiveJournal.

On the other hand, ONTD moderators “are free to leave and go and volunteer their time in any way they see fit.” In addition, the moderators can reject submissions for reasons other than those provided by the rules, which calls into question the level of control that LiveJournal exerts over their conduct. This evidence raises genuine issues of material fact regarding the level of control LiveJournal exercised over the moderators. From the evidence currently in the record, reasonable jurors could conclude that an agency relationship existed.

4.

We turn briefly to a related issue that the fact finder must resolve in the event there is a finding that the moderators are agents of LiveJournal. In that event, the fact finder must assess whether Mavrix’s photographs were indeed posted at the direction of the users in light of the moderators’ role in screening and posting the photographs. Posts are at the direction of the user if the service provider played no role in posting them on its site or if the service provider carried out activities that were “narrowly directed” towards enhancing the accessibility of the posts. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2008); see also Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1018. Accessibility-enhancing activities include automatic processes, for example, to reformat posts or perform some technological change. Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1020 (referring to accessibility-enhancing activities as those where the service provider did “not actively participate in or supervise file uploading”). Some manual service provider activities that screen for infringement or other harmful material like pornography can also be accessibility-enhancing. Id. at 1012 n.2. Indeed, § 512(m) of the DMCA provides that no liability will arise from “a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity.” Id. at 1022 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)).

The ONTD moderators manually review submissions and publicly post only about one-third of submissions. The moderators review the substance of posts; only those posts relevant to new and exciting celebrity gossip are approved. The question for the fact finder is whether the moderators’ acts were merely accessibility-enhancing activities or whether instead their extensive, manual, and substantive activities went beyond the automatic and limited manual activities we have approved as accessibility-enhancing.

Because the district court focused on the users’ submission of Mavrix’s photographs rather than on ONTD’s posting of those photographs and rejected Mavrix’s argument that unpaid moderators could be agents of LiveJournal, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to LiveJournal. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the moderators were LiveJournal’s agents. Accordingly, remand is warranted. In assessing LiveJ-ournal’s threshold eligibility for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the fact finder must resolve the factual dispute regarding the moderators’ status as LiveJournal’s agents and in light of that determination, whether LiveJournal showed that Mavrix’s photographs were posted at the direction of the users.

C.

Once the district court concluded that the moderators were not LiveJournal’s agents (except for its employee Delzer), it proceeded to address the two remaining disputed requirements for establishing the § 512(c) safe harbor defense — lack of knowledge of infringements and lack of any financial benefit from infringement that it had the right and ability to control. Because these issues may be contested on remand, we proceed to address them to provide guidance to the district court.

1.

If LiveJournal shows that it meets the threshold requirement for the’§ 512(e) safe harbor because the photographs were posted at the direction of the user, LiveJ-ournal must then show that it lacked both actual and red flag knowledge of the infringements. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A). Actual knowledge refers to whether the service provider had subjective knowledge while red flag knowledge turns on whether a reasonable person would objectively know of the infringements. Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1025 (quoting YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d at 31). Both actual and red flag knowledge refer to knowledge of the specific infringement alleged. Id. at 1023, 1025.

On remand, the fact finder must first determine whether LiveJournal had actual knowledge of the infringements. A copyright holder’s failure to notify the service provider of infringement through the notice and takedown procedure, as Mavrix failed to do here, “strip[s] it of the most powerful evidence of [actual] knowledge.” Id. at 1020 (quoting Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1107 (W.D. Wash. 2004)). Such evidence is powerful, but not conclusive, towards showing that a service provider lacked actual knowledge. Id. at 1021. The district court held that LiveJournal lacked actual knowledge of the infringing nature of Mav-rix’s photographs solely on the basis of Mavrix’s failure to notify LiveJournal of the infringements. This was an incomplete assessment of the issue. To fully assess actual knowledge, the fact finder should also assess a service provider’s subjective knowledge of the infringing nature of the posts. See, e.g., id. at 1025 (continuing to assess knowledge). Although Delzer does not remember approving the posts and for this reason can be said to lack actual knowledge; Mavrix has not had the opportunity to depose the moderators to determine their subjective knowledge. On remand, the fact finder should determine whether LiveJournal, through its agents, had actual knowledge of the infringing nature of the posts.

In the event the fact finder determines that LiveJournal lacked actual knowledge of the infringements, it must then assess whether LiveJournal lacked red flag knowledge. Red flag knowledge arises when a service provider is “aware of facts that would have made the specific infringement ‘objectively’ obvious to a reasonable person.” Fung, 710 F.3d at 1043 (quoting YouTube, 676 F.3d at 31); see also UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d 1099, lili (C.D. Cal. 2009) (describing red flag knowledge as a “high bar”). The infringement must be immediately apparent to a non-expert. See Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d at 1108; H.R. Rep. 105-551, pt. 2 at 58 (1998) (explaining that infringements must be “apparent from even a brief and casual viewing”). Some of the photographs at issue in this case contained either a generic watermark or a watermark containing Mavrix’s website, “Mavrixonline.com.” To determine whether LiveJournal had red flag knowledge, the fact finder should assess if it would be objectively obvious to a reasonable person that material bearing a generic watermark or a watermark referring to a service provider’s website was infringing.

2.

Finally, if the fact finder determines that LiveJournal met the § 512(c) safe harbor threshold requirement (i.e., that the photographs were posted at the direction of the user, see 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)), and that LiveJournal lacked knowledge of the infringements (see 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)), then the fact finder should determine whether LiveJournal showed that it did not financially benefit from infringements that it had the right and ability to control. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B).

We agree with the district court in Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. that the fact finder should consider the service provider’s procedures that existed at the time of the infringements when assessing the service provider’s right and ability to control the infringements. 586 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The fact finder should consider the service provider’s general practices, not its conduct with respect to the specific infringements. See Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1023,1030.

“Right and ability to control” involves “something more than the ability to remove or block access to materials posted on a service provider’s website.” Id. (quoting YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d at 38). The service provider does “something more” when it exerts “high levels of control over activities of users.” Id. The service provider exerts “high levels of control,” for example, when it, “prescreens sites, gives them extensive advice, prohibits the proliferation of identical sites,” provides “detailed instructions regarding] issues of layout, appearance, and content,” and ensures “that celebrity images do not over-saturate the content.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1173, 1182 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1030, cited with approval in Perfect 10, 213 F.Supp.2d 1146.

The district court concluded that LiveJ-ournal did not have high levels of control such that it had “something more” than the right and ability to remove or block access to material posted on ONTD. LiveJ-ournal’s rules instruct users on the substance and infringement of their posts. The moderators screen for content and other guidelines such as infringement. Nearly two-thirds of submitted posts are rejected, including on substantive grounds. ONTD maintains a list of sources that have complained about infringement from which users should not submit posts. LiveJournal went so far as to use a tool to automatically block any posts from one source. In determining whether LiveJournal had the right and ability to control infringements, the fact finder must assess whether LiveJ-ournal’s extensive review process, infringement list, and blocker tool constituted high levels of control to show “something more.”

LiveJournal must also show that it did not derive a financial benefit from infringement that it had the right and ability to control. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B). “In determining whether the financial benefit criterion is satisfied, courts should take a common-sense, fact-based approach, not a formalistic one.” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 44 (1998). The financial benefit need not be substantial or a large proportion of the service provider’s revenue. Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1079. In Fung, we held that a financial benefit was shown when “there was a vast amount of infringing material on [the service provider’s] websites ... supporting an inference that [the service provider’s] revenue stream is predicated on the broad availability of infringing materials for [its] users, thereby attracting advertisers.” 710 F.3d at 1045. On the other hand, the service provider in that case “promoted advertising by pointing to infringing activity” and “attracted primarily visitors who were seeking to engage in infringing activity, as that is mostly what occurred on [the service provider’s] sites.” Id.

LiveJournal derives revenue from advertising based on the number of views ONTD receives. Mavrix presented evidence showing that approximately 84% of posts on ONTD contain infringing material, although LiveJournal contested the validity of this evidence. The fact finder should determine whether LiveJournal financially benefitted from infringement that it had the right and ability to control.

D.

Mavrix also challenges the denial of its motions to compel responses to interrogatories seeking the identities of the moderators. The magistrate judge denied both of Mavrix’s motions, and on review, the district court upheld the denial, reasoning that the moderators had a First Amendment interest in internet anonymity. When a district court denies reconsideration of a pretrial discovery order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(a), our review is deferential. Upon review of such a ruling we will disturb it only if the complaining party shows clear legal error and actual and substantial prejudice. See Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 F.3d 1005, 1009 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014); In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing the standard as “highly deferential”). In determining whether First Amendment protections for anonymous speech outweigh the need for discovery, we have applied a multi-factor balancing test. See, e.g., In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1174-76 (describing balancing factors).

Notwithstanding the deferential standard of review and complex issues of law that govern this discovery ruling, we vacate the district court’s order denying the motion and remand for further consideration. Whether the moderators are agents should inform the district court’s analysis of whether Mavrix’s need for discovery outweighs the moderators’ interest in anonymous internet speech. Given the importance of the agency analysis to the ultimate outcome of the case, and the importance of discovering the moderators’ roles to that agency analysis, the district court should also consider alternative means by which Mavrix could formally notify or serve the moderators with process requesting that they appear for their deposition at a date and time certain.

IY.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Live Journal, vacate its order denying discovery, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED, VACATED and REMANDED.

      . The facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

      . Because moderators, maintainers, and owners all can review posts, we refer to all three as moderators when discussing the act of reviewing posts.

      .In a more recent post about Beyoncé, a user speculated that she would perform her song "Formation” at the 2016 Super Bowl. Other users commented on the post, debating how Beyoncé might incorporate feminist and racial justice themes into her performance. XOXOBLISS, Beyoncé Is Performing Formation at the Super Bowl + Celebrities React to Formation, ONTD (Feb. 6, 2016, 05: 49 PM), http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/ 100179096.html.

      . When Delzer was hired in 2010, LiveJour-nal had not yet created the owner administrator position. In 2011, when LiveJournal created the owner position, Delzer was elected by the community and became the owner. After this lawsuit was filed, LiveJournal’s parent company became the owner.

      . Because LiveJournal removed the posts, Mavrix’s request for injunctive relief is likely moot.

      . Section 512(c)(1) provides in relevant part: A service provider shall not be liable ... for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
      (A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
      (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
      (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
      (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
      (C) upon notification of claimed infringement ..., responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing....
      17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1).

      . LiveJournal must also show that it complied with § 512(c)'s notice and takedown procedure, but that issue is not contested in this case.

      . The Tenth Circuit held that the service provider’s contractors were "users” rather than agents under the DMCA. BWP, 820 F.3d at 1180. The court also held that even if the contractors were agents, they were not employees. Id. at 1181. Finally, the court held that even if the contractors were employees, they could still be users. Id. To the extent that BWP’s holding contradicts our case law that common law principles of agency apply to the DMCA such that a service provider is liable for the acts of its agents, including its employees, we reject it. See, e.g., Fung, 710 F.3d at 1038 ("When dealing with corporate or entity defendants, ... the relevant intent must be that of the entity itself, as defined by traditional agency law principles.... ”).

      . Although the district court’s order does not specify whether the moderators were paid, the parties’ filings before the district court make clear that the moderators were unpaid. See Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability at 2, Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. CV 06-5578 SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009), 2009 WL 6355911; Plaintiff's Reply Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability at 6, Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. CV 06-5578 SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009), 2009 WL 6355911.

      . Agents need not receive payment from their principal to be agents. Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt. d (Am. Law Inst. 2006) ("Many agents act or promise to act gratuitously."); Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 4.4 (2007) ("One may be an agent without receiving compensation for services.”).

      . LiveJournal ratified the ONTD rules when Ferrell discussed changing the rules with Del-zer and declined to do so. See United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 491 F.2d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 1974) ("Ratification is the affirmance by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but which was done or professedly done on his account....") (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 82 (Am. Law Inst. 1958)); see also Gomez, 768 F.3d at 878.

      . The district court did not assess whether the moderators’ review of posts exceeded accessibility-enhancing activities because it focused on submission rather than posting and did not determine whether the moderators were agents. In Shelter Capital, we suggested that accessibility-enhancing activities have a limit when we approved software “processes that automatically occur when a user uploads” materials as within accessibility-enhancing activities. 718 F.3d at 1016, 1020. Other circuits have more squarely faced the outer edges of this limit. The Second Circuit found it a close call and remanded when YouTube manually selected videos for front page syndication on the basis of substance. Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 40 (2d Cir. 2012). The district court on remand held that only those processes "without manual intervention” satisfied the § 512(c) safe harbor. Viacom Int’l Inc. v. You-Tube, Inc., 940 F.Supp.2d 110, 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Fourth Circuit extended accessibility-enhancing activities to include a real estate website’s "cursory” manual screening to determine whether photographs indeed depicted real estate. CoStar Grp., Inc. v. Loop-Net, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 556 (4th Cir. 2004). The fact finder should determine whether Li-veJournal’s manual, substantive review process went beyond the automatic processes we have approved as accessibility-enhancing activities such that the posts were still at the direction of the user.

      . Congress explained that red flag knowledge includes "customary indicia ... such as a standard and accepted digital watermark.” H.R. Rep. 105-55, pt. 1, at 25 (1998). But see Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d at 1115 (declining to rely on this report because it addressed a "version of the DMCA that is significantly different in its text and structure than the version that Congress ultimately adopted”).

      . The district court stated that Delzer was unaware that Mavrix had a website so photographs containing a "Mavrixonline.com” watermark did not differ from the other photographs with a more generic watermark. To the extent that the district court relied on Delzer’s purported lack of knowledge that Mavrix had a website to suggest that Delzer lacked knowledge of the infringements, this was error. The existence of a watermark, and particularly this watermark with a company name, is relevant to the knowledge inquiry.

      .This inquiry is different from both the threshold determination (i.e., whether the infringing material was posted at the direction of the user, see 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)), and the knowledge showing (i.e., whether the service provider had knowledge of the infringing material, see 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)), where the fact finder should focus on the specific infringements, rather than on the service provider’s general practices and procedures.

      . "Right and ability to control” may also be shown by intentional inducement of infringement, but we agree with the district court that inducement is not at issue here. Shelter Capital, 718 F.3d at 1030.