The court held that Kodak was not liable for direct copyright infringement because its photofinishing system relied on an automated process, and liability requires volitional conduct beyond "mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies.

This case is one of the few to analyze the forms of injunctive relief available to plaintiffs suing online service providers protected from copyright liability by DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

[1]: 1  To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must prove either "a likelihood of success on the merits" or "irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships falls in her favor, or that public policy supports her sought-after relief.

§ 512(c) because (1) Photobucket fell within the statutory definition of "service provider,"[1]: 2  (2) it implemented a policy to deal with repeat infringers,[1]: 2  (3) it did not interfere with "standard technical measures,"[1]: 3  and (4) under the circumstances of this case, it met the requirements for protection.

[1]: 7–8 The court also found that Wolk failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships weighed in her favor, or that the injunction would serve the public interest.

"[2]: 736  Courts ask "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.

[2]: 743  It found that Photobucket satisfied the three threshold requirements for safe-harbor protections: (1) it was a "service provider" within the statutory definition, (2) it adopted and reasonably implemented a policy to block repeat infringers, and (3) it accommodated and did not interfere with "standard technical measures.

[2]: 749–51 Eric Goldman wrote that "this is the most detailed judicial discussion of 512(j)[3] to date", offering a substantial interpretation of the DMCA's injunctive provisions.

"[4] Martin Schwimmer of "The Trademark Blog" pointed out that Photobucket may not have pre-screening methods in place to police infringement, but larger companies like eBay do have this technology.

[5] He also commented that "it will continue to be cheaper and more effective to place intermediaries on actual notice than to bring 'constructive' notice/they shoulda known' litigations.

"[5] Thomas Yohannan of the California Western School of Law wrote that this case is "a reminder that the responsibility of finding infringing works is up to the copyright holder, not the website.

"[7] Joe Mullin of GigaOm wrote that "the fact that Photobucket was found to easily fit into the 'safe harbor' provided by the DMCA suggests that the path for internet companies to stay safe from copyright allegations is getting clearer in the wake of recent major decisions, such as the YouTube case.

[14][15][16][17][18] In this case, the court established that the transmission of images from Photobucket to the Kodak Gallery did "not constitute a volitional act" because it was the result of an automated process.