In The "It Turns Out..." Department: Shutterstock Not Liable Where It Promptly Removes Image, After Indian Interloper's Repeated Wrongful Uploads.

We first mentioned this case on a snowy, quiet Sunday night. . . in January 2022.

What we hadn't known then, because Shutterstock hadn't yet filed an answer, was that the actual infringer was a someone (or "someones" -- an illicit company) located behind firewalls in India, who had repeatedly removed the photographer's copyright marks -- and repeatedly reposted the infringing work (they got paid a few times on downloads of the infringing image, but now that has ended, too).

Each time Shutterstock was made aware that the Indian contributor had reposted it, Shutterstock removed it -- doing its part under the DMCA takedown provisions.

So, sadly. . . Steinmetz is likely left without a meaningful remedy here because it will be nearly impossible to sort out, and find the repeat infringer, in India, behind the proxy servers / anonymizers. But Shutterstock, for its part, will not pay the infringer for downloads. So the infringer is unlikely to continue in a course of conduct that nets no monetary windfall.

Here is the 17 page opinion. It is well-reasoned.

. . .Summary judgment for Shutterstock under DMCA Sec. 512(c). . . .

Now you know. Onward to a lovely fall evening here. . . special dinner up!

नमस्ते