Tubi Loses Case at Copyright Claims Board

Earlier today, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) issued another final determination, this time involving the video streaming platform Tubi.

Independent-International Pictures Corporation (IIP) filed the claim in September 2023. The company alleged that Tubi unlawfully streamed four films that it owns, despite the films containing watermarks and other identifying information.

Tubi, for its part, disputed that IIP had the rights to the films and claimed to have gotten the licenses from a third party.

Ultimately, the CCB ruled in favor of IIP. The board ruled that IIP had proven ownership of all four films and that the licenses Tubi had obtained were invalid.

However, the board only granted IIP $6,750, far shy of the $30,000 maximum damages that IIP had sought in the case.

Though the case is unique in that it involves a well-known streaming service, it ultimately hinged on mundane questions that the CCB has tackled before.

Still, it’s an interesting examination of how movies are licensed for streaming services and how the CCB determines who has the rights to a particular work.

The Facts of the Case

IIP filed the claim in September 2023. The claim alleged that Tubi had illegally streamed four films: Beast of Blood, Mad Doctor of Blood Island, The Blood Drinkers and Horror of the Blood Monsters. All four films are low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks from the mid-1960s to early 1970s.

According to IIP, Tubi streamed the films, despite them featuring watermarks and other identifying information from home video releases. Those releases were licensed to Image Entertainment and Severin Films, neither of which could or did license the films for streaming.

Tubi acknowledged that it began streaming the films in May 2021, meaning that there was no issue with the statute of limitations in filing the claim.

Instead, Tubi had two separate arguments for why it was not liable. First, they claimed to have licensed the work from third parties. Second, they claimed that IIP did not have standing to sue over the works as they were not the proper rightsholders.

The first argument was dismissed outright. Though Tubi did provide those licenses, there was no evidence that they had provided a chain-of-title or copyright registration information. Since IIP was not aware of those companies, the board moved on from that issue.

However, the ownership issue was much more complicated. First off, IIP itself had taken multiple forms, having been reformed at least twice. Second, three of the films, The Blood Drinkers, Mad Doctor of Blood Island and Horror of the Blood Monsters, did not have timely copyright registrations. As such, there was no presumption of ownership.

But the board found, in all four cases, that IIP had proven its ownership of the films and provided ample evidence to support its claims. This left only the issue of damages.

IIP had sought the maximum damages, which would have been $30,000. However, IIP was unable to provide a license that was comparable to Tubi’s use. IIP also claimed that it missed out on an $81,000 licensing deal but was unable to provide evidence to support that claim.

Instead, the CCB based its damages on the amount that Tubi had earned from the movies. It had provided financials indicating it had earned $2,271.86 from the films. Though Tubi tried to reduce that total, claiming some of the revenue was not attributable to the films, the CCB disagreed.

Ultimately, the CCB tripled the actual damages and awarded IIP $6,700 in damages.

My Analysis

This is one of the most complicated cases that the CCB has tackled. Including the Final Determination, it has 85 separate filings. Most of the issues address ownership, whether IIP actually holds the rights in question.

Tubi clearly made mistakes involving these movies. Using watermarked versions and not getting a chain of ownership from the companies they licensed from are major issues and raise questions about Tubi’s practices.

However, despite that, IIP still had an uphill battle in this case. Though IIP seemed to do everything right, the complicated history of these films (especially since three were filmed in the Philippines) meant there was no guarantee that they would be able to prove their ownership and standing.

Yet, they did, and that left only the issue of damages.

Here is where IIP’s case began to falter. The company was able to provide a 2018 streaming license that required a $4,000 advance for two of the films. However, it had recoupable provisions, and it is not known how much IIP was ultimately paid.

Instead, the board based its damages on the financial information it did have, which was from Tubi.

Since Tubi is a free streaming service, its revenue comes from advertising. According to Tubi, they earned $2,271.86 from the films. This was the amount they earned after expenses and the split with the third-party licensor.

That was the amount the $6,700 award was ultimately based on. In a way, that is a significant win for Tubi. If either the board had accepted IIP’s license values or if the case had been before a regular court, the damages likely would have been significantly higher.

Still, for four little-known films that are over 50 years old, $6,700 is not particularly bad either. Although the CCB cannot issue an injunction, this is likely in addition to an actual license from Tubi if they wish to continue streaming the films.

So both sides have reasons to be grateful for this decision.

Bottom Line

One of the things I find most interesting is the delay in the final determination. The last document in this case was filed in January 2025. Both sides waited over seven months for a final determination.

It’s unclear why this happened. There’s nothing in the procedural history to indicate what the delay was. Yes, this is an incredibly complicated case, but the wait still seems excessive.

Ultimately, the decision appears reasonable. IIP was able to prove its ownership of the works, and it is clear that Tubi did not have a proper license. For Tubi, the next step is to secure an actual license and go after the third parties that sold it a bill of goods.

To be clear, I don’t think that Tubi did anything egregiously wrong. Yes, there are some issues and holes in its licensing process, but they are ultimately a victim here as well.

The main issue I do have is with the CCB itself. Not only did it take two years to decide the case, but seven months of that were relatively silent. Between that and the limited damages, it’s tough to make the case to rightsholders that the CCB is a good place to hear their cases.

With the other issues at the Copyright Office, the CCB needs to establish itself as something that is both useful and worthwhile. Drawn-out cases will not help with that.

Still, it is interesting that this case was filed with the board and that Tubi chose to engage in it. That provides at least some evidence that the CCB is providing the platform it set out to do.