Vicarious copyright infringement liability evolved from the principle of respondent superior. To succeed on a claim of vicarious liability for a direct infringer’s action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant:

(1) Had the right and ability to control the direct infringer’s actions; and

(2) Derived a direct financial benefit from the infringing activity.

Thus, vicarious liability focuses not on the knowledge and participation but on the relationship between the direct infringer and the defendant. This also seems to be just and fair since a person having direct control over the activity and deriving monetary benefits out of the same must be held responsible for acts or omissions of his employee. The knowledge aspect is not that important but it is relevant for deciding the quantum of punishment and damages. If the offensive act or omission was done within the knowledge of the defendant then the quantum of punishment and damages will be much more as compared to the situation where he has no knowledge.

Legal precedent for vicarious copyright infringement liability has developed along two general relational lines. The first relational line involves the employer/employee relationship, whereas the second involves the lessor/lessee relationship.

END OF PART XIII
TO BE CONTINUED

ALL RIGHT RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.