Viral DRM v. Navarro — Default Judgment Trimmed for Standing Gaps and Unsupported Damages in Weather-Video Copyright Case

Background

Viral DRM LLC, which syndicates extreme-weather videos, and six individual videographers sued Ana Navarro and El Heraldo de Mexico, who are located in Mexico, for copyright infringement and for removing and falsifying copyright management information (CMI) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They alleged that defendants copied plaintiffs’ videos from YouTube, removed CMI such as watermarks, re-uploaded the videos to their own YouTube channel and earned revenue through YouTube’s monetization program. Plaintiffs sent takedown requests, and Navarro responded with counter-notifications asking YouTube to reinstate the videos. Eight works were at issue.

Service in Mexico proved difficult, and in April 2026 the court authorized alternative service by email and website posting. Defendants never appeared, the clerk entered default, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment. After a September 25, 2026 hearing at which no one appeared for defendants, plaintiffs also documented FedEx delivery of the motion to Navarro’s address in Mexico. The court found personal jurisdiction in part because defendants’ counter-notifications consented to jurisdiction in the district under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D).

The Court’s Holding

The court granted default judgment in part.

Standing. Only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right may sue for infringement. The court declined default judgment for Viral DRM, which offered no evidence that it owns any of the works and was not named on any registration certificate. It also declined judgment on one individual plaintiff’s work because no registration certificate was attached to the complaint despite a declaration saying one was, and on two works that registration certificates showed were held by a non-party, Global Weather Productions LLC, so two other plaintiffs could not assert them. That left five works with standing.

Liability. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s Eitel factors, the court found default judgment appropriate for the five remaining works on the copyright claims and the DMCA claims about removing and falsifying CMI. Defendants were properly served and did not respond.

Damages. The court awarded far less than requested. It reduced one plaintiff’s claim for actual damages (based on a typical $2,500 30-day license) to $2,500 because the standard license included a perpetual right to use the clip in a broadcast, so a single license would have covered defendants’ use. It declined to treat willfulness as established because the first amended complaint never used the word “willful” or alleged that defendants acted knowingly, so statutory damages were limited to the ordinary range of $750 to $30,000 per work with no willfulness enhancement. It awarded $3,000, $9,000 and $10,000 per work in statutory damages to different plaintiffs (including $20,000 total to one plaintiff for two works) after criticizing inconsistent and unsupported calculations in one declaration. On the CMI claims, it awarded $2,500 per violation rather than the maximum, for $10,000 and $5,000 to two plaintiffs, noting that CMI claims have no willfulness enhancement.

Fees, costs and injunction. The court found plaintiffs were entitled to fees because defendants’ failure to defend was objectively unreasonable and an award would help deter similar conduct. But it reduced the fee request from $12,520 to $10,000, citing numerous errors and missing documents in plaintiffs’ filings, and awarded costs of $1,245.16 in full. It also quoted another judge’s remarks, in an earlier case involving the same plaintiff and counsel, that each filing there raised more questions than it answered. It entered a permanent injunction limited to the five works for which plaintiffs have standing, and awarded post-judgment interest.

Key Takeaways

• A syndicator or licensing company must show it owns or beneficially owns an exclusive right in a work; being named on a business arrangement is not enough, and a registration certificate must actually be in the record.
• On default, willfulness is deemed admitted only if it was actually pleaded; otherwise statutory damages are capped at the ordinary range.
• Courts want evidence of what a willing buyer would pay, such as actual license prices, and will scrutinize inconsistent declarations.
• DMCA CMI statutory damages are set per violation within a $2,500 to $25,000 range, and the maximum is not automatic.

Why It Matters

Rights holders who pursue repeat infringers abroad often rely on default judgments, but this ruling shows that courts will still examine ownership, pleading and proof. Pleading willfulness expressly, attaching registrations, and documenting license history can make a significant difference to the amount recovered.

The decision also confirms that a counter-notification under the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown process can support personal jurisdiction in the district where the platform is located, which can help rights holders reach foreign infringers who dispute takedowns.