Background
David Stebbins, a content creator who streams on YouTube and Twitch under the handle “Acerthorn,” discovered that another YouTube user created a channel titled “Acerthorn the True Acerthorn” to “harass, dox, and impersonate” him. That channel used as its icon a single screenshot captured from one of Stebbins’ copyrighted livestreams (the “Channel Icon”). Stebbins requested that Google remove the Channel Icon from the YouTube platform. After Google declined the takedown request, Stebbins sued Google for copyright infringement.
The district court in the Northern District of California granted Google’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Channel Icon constituted fair use of Stebbins’ copyrighted work under all four statutory factors. The court also declared Stebbins a vexatious litigant and entered a pre-filing order. Stebbins appealed the dismissal and multiple related orders.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit affirmed on all grounds. On the copyright claim, the court agreed that the four fair-use factors under 17 U.S.C. §107 weighed in Google’s favor.
On the first factor (purpose and character of the use), the court found the Channel Icon sufficiently transformative because it possessed a “further purpose or different character” from Stebbins’ original work by adding “new expression, meaning, or message” through criticism of Stebbins’ copyrighted content. On the second and third factors (nature of the work and amount used), the court held that because the Channel Icon was a single frame extracted from a nearly four-hour livestream—one primarily consisting of the streamer discussing opinions about a video game and handling feedback, making it more “informational” than “creative” in nature—the minimal amount taken weighed in favor of fair use. On the fourth factor (market effect), the court found no harm because the Channel Icon “performs a different function” than the copyrighted work.
The court also affirmed the vexatious-litigant designation, finding the district court properly provided notice and opportunity to be heard, compiled an adequate record, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and narrowly tailored the pre-filing order.
Key Takeaways
- A single screenshot from a lengthy livestream used as a channel icon for purposes of criticism or commentary is likely fair use—the transformative purpose of criticism, combined with the minimal amount taken relative to the whole work, tips all four factors.
- Livestream content that primarily involves discussing opinions (about games, feedback, etc.) is characterized as “informational” rather than “creative,” placing it further from the “core of intended copyright protection” and making fair use findings easier.
- Platform operators like Google are not liable for copyright infringement when third-party uses of a creator’s content qualify as fair use, even if the use occurs in the context of harassment or impersonation.
Why It Matters
For content creators on YouTube and similar platforms, this case illustrates the limits of copyright as a tool to address online harassment. Even when another user creates a channel specifically to harass and impersonate a creator, using a screenshot as a channel icon to mock or criticize falls within fair use’s protections. Creators facing such situations may need to pursue other legal theories (trademark, right of publicity, or platform terms-of-service enforcement) rather than copyright claims.
For platforms, the decision provides additional comfort that declining DMCA takedown requests in clear fair-use situations does not expose the platform to liability. The vexatious-litigant designation also signals that courts will protect platforms from repeated frivolous copyright claims by the same filers.