Timeless Production v. Vitvitskiy — Default Judgment Denied in YouTube Copyright and DMCA Counter-Notice Case for Lack of Jurisdiction, Standing and Damages Proof

Background

Timeless Production FZ LLC, a producer, editor and publisher of audiovisual content featured on the “Tekniq” YouTube channel, sued Alexandr Vladimirovich Vitvitskiy, an individual residing in Ukraine who manages eight YouTube channels. Timeless alleged that Vitvitskiy and Doe defendants systematically reproduced, copied, displayed and distributed its registered videos on those channels without authorization. It also alleged that after it sent takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Vitvitskiy submitted counter-notices that misrepresented the ownership of the works and claimed the videos as his own original content.

The court authorized service on Vitvitskiy by email in January 2026, and Timeless filed proof of service in February. Vitvitskiy did not appear, and the clerk entered default in April 2026. Timeless then moved for default judgment, seeking at least $1.5 million in damages plus interest, fees and injunctive relief.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice to an amended complaint or renewed motion. A court asked to enter default judgment must first confirm its jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and check that service was adequate, and then weighs the seven factors from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Eitel v. McCool, taking the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true except as to damages.

Jurisdiction and service. The court had subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint asserts copyright and other federal claims, and service by email under the court’s order was adequate. But Timeless’s motion did not address personal jurisdiction over Vitvitskiy. The complaint alleged jurisdiction because his YouTube channels are accessible in the district and earn revenue from U.S. viewers and because, under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), submitting a DMCA counter-notification consents to the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts. The court said a renewed motion must provide evidence and analysis showing that he purposefully directed his activities at the forum or consented to jurisdiction. Because Timeless is a United Arab Emirates company, it must also address whether it has any connection to California and what effect that has.

Merits and sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint pleaded seven causes of action, including direct and willful copyright infringement, public display infringement, falsification and removal of copyright management information, unfair competition and misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). The motion addressed only the § 512(f) claim, which allows liability for knowing, material misrepresentations in a takedown notice or counter-notification, and the court found even that claim insufficient. Timeless alleged it is the sole owner of the copyrights, but the exhibit listing the works did not identify the owner, no registrations were filed, and Timeless was not identified as the copyright owner in all of the takedown notices or any of the counter-notices. Several takedown notices named “We Protect Your Content” as the copyright owner and an individual as its authorized representative, and nothing explained that entity’s or that person’s relationship to Timeless. Timeless also did not connect each copyrighted work to a corresponding takedown notice and counter-notice. Because section 512(f) gives a claim to the “copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee,” and the record did not show that the owner or an authorized licensee sent the notices, Timeless had not shown standing. The motion did not address the other six claims at all, so the second and third Eitel factors weighed against default judgment as to every claim.

Other Eitel factors. The failure to show a sufficient and meritorious complaint left open the possibility of disputes about material facts. Timeless would not be prejudiced by denial, since it can amend or add evidence. The sum at stake, at least $1.5 million, is substantial, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits also weighed against default judgment. Although there was no evidence that the default resulted from excusable neglect, that did not outweigh the other factors.

Relief sought. The court added that it would deny the motion even without those problems, because Timeless did not show it is entitled to the relief it seeks. A default judgment cannot exceed the amount pleaded, and the court evaluates proof of damages rather than accepting them as true. The motion addressed only the § 512(f) claim, and damages under that section must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the service provider and the provider’s reliance on it, which can include things like employee time spent dealing with a DMCA notice if shown by evidence. Timeless offered no evidence of any harm from the allegedly false counter-notifications. Its counsel’s declaration instead asserted entitlement to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per willful infringement, up to $25,000 per violation of the copyright management information provisions, and a total of $1.5 million, which are not remedies for a § 512(f) claim. It also gave no evidence of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and did not show that § 512(f) supports a permanent injunction and destruction of infringing copies.

The court allowed Timeless to file an amended complaint and/or renewed motion by November 12, 2026, if it can do so consistent with Rule 11.

Key Takeaways

• A court must independently confirm personal jurisdiction over a defaulting foreign defendant, so a motion for default judgment should include evidence and analysis of jurisdiction, including any reliance on the consent to jurisdiction in a DMCA counter-notification.
• Only a copyright owner or authorized licensee can sue under DMCA Section 512(f), so a plaintiff should be prepared to show that takedown notices sent by a third-party enforcement agent were sent on its behalf.
• A default judgment motion must address each claim on which relief is sought and tie requested damages to the specific claim and to evidence of harm.
• Statutory copyright damages cannot be recovered on a Section 512(f) claim, which requires proof of damages caused by the misrepresentation and the platform’s reliance on it.

Why It Matters

Rights holders that rely on enforcement agencies and automated takedown services, and later pursue operators of copycat channels who file counter-notices, need records showing the agency’s authority and linking each work to each notice. The ruling also illustrates that a defendant’s default does not relieve the plaintiff of showing jurisdiction, a viable claim and proof of damages before a court will enter a multimillion-dollar judgment.

The ruling is a denial without prejudice. It does not decide whether Vitvitskiy infringed any copyright or submitted false counter-notices.