Cooperstown Dreams Park Loses Federal Case Over YouTube Satire

A federal judge has dismissed federal copyright and trademark infringement claims brought by Cooperstown Dreams Park against YouTube channel Baseball Doesn’t Exist and its satirical video, “Cooperstown, Where 12-Year-Olds’ Dreams Go To Die.” U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Coombe last week reasoned that “a reasonable observer of the video could only understand it as ridiculing and critically commenting on Dreams Park,” and thus the video’s display of registered trademarks and logos, along with promotional materials featuring young Mike Trout and Bryce Harper, does not amount to infringement. Coombe, however, declined to dismiss state-law claims. Dreams Park has provided youth baseball tournaments and camp services for about 30 years. The company operates a youth baseball facility in Cooperstown, N.Y., home to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Central to the dispute is Baseball Doesn’t Exist posting a 1-minute, 50-second video last July. The video, which has been taken down, poked fun at youth baseball players whose local communities believe they’re “so talented” that they’re “going pro for sure” and are “so good, they want you on the travel team.” Attracting more than 2 million views, the video displays certain aspects of Dreams Park’s intellectual property and features a voiceover that references the costs faced by parents in sending their kids to camp by saying, “Dad’s working overtime and Mom just got a second job to afford this [expletive deleted].” In court documents, Baseball Doesn’t Exist argues the video is protected by the doctrine of fair use, the lawful use of copyrighted works without permission in certain circumstances. A key consideration in a fair-use analysis is whether the use is transformative, meaning it adds a new purpose, meaning or message to the original work. Baseball Doesn’t Exist insists its criticism of youth baseball was “highly transformative” by “employing ‘unhinged’ but good-natured parody.” From that lens, the video at issue is communicating a very different message from viewpoints preferred and enunciated by Dreams Park. Dreams Park disagrees with that line of legal reasoning. It notes that Dreams Park logos, videos and photographs appear in the video without having been “physically altered in any meaningful way.” The company also points out that Baseball Doesn’t Exist is trying to “create content that would grow its business” just as Dreams Park does, and that uniform purpose of displaying IP should weigh against a finding of transformation. Coombe weighed the competing arguments and concluded Baseball Doesn’t Exist’s use of Dreams Park’s intellectual property was “for the transformative purposes of criticism and commentary.” She stressed the “sarcastic-laden narrative” offered by Baseball Doesn’t Exist in “making fun of ‘successful’ youth athletes who must come to terms with the limits of their potential upon experiencing national competition at Dreams Park.” Coombe also surmised that “a reasonable observer of the video could only understand it as ridiculing and critically commenting on Dreams Park,” and would not be “confused” with any advertising or marketing for Dreams Park. While Coombe tossed Dreams Park’s federal claims, she declined to dismiss the company’s claims under New York law, specifically trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution. The judge didn’t address the merits or weaknesses of those claims, instead questioning whether the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has sufficient jurisdiction to hear them. She directed Dreams Park to file an affidavit addressing the issue. Coombe’s decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case could become noteworthy precedent for social media companies that rely on targets’ intellectual property in attempting to offer critical or satirical commentary.