Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their Eighth Claim for Relief, alleging violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200et seq. Defendants have, in turn, voluntarily dismissed each of their six counterclaims. (Defs.’Mot. Br. 1 n.1.)3
(“DMCA”) requesting that the video be removed, and YouTube promptlycomplied. Only a few days later, DeVore sent a DMCA counternotification toYouTube requesting that the video be reposted on the grounds that it constitutedparody. Meanwhile, DeVore decided to use a second Henley song for hiscampaign. This time, DeVore and Hart created a campaign video featuring thesong “All She Wants to Do is Tax” (“Tax”), their take on “Dance.”“Tax” was written by DeVore, who modified the lyrics of “Dance” tolampoon Barbara Boxer (“Boxer”), one of California’s Democratic Senators, andto criticize cap-and-trade and global-warming polices. Just as with “November,”Hart used an instrumental-only track of “Dance,” supplied his own vocals usingDeVore’s lyrics, and paired the song with a video he created using a variety of online images and videos of, among others, Boxer, Al Gore, and Disney characterScrooge McDuck. The Defendants posted the video to YouTube on or about April14, 2009. On April 17, 2009, this action was filed by Henley, Campbell, andKortchmar, alleging copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act.The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, each seekingrelief on Plaintiffs’ First through Sixth Claims for Relief for direct, vicarious, andcontributory copyright infringement of each song and Henley’s Seventh Claim forRelief for false endorsement under the Lanham Act.
II.LEGAL STANDARDSummary judgment is appropriate only where the record, read in the lightmost favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates that “there is no genuine issue asto any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matterof law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323-24 (1986). Summary adjudication, or partial summary judgment “upon all orany part of a claim,” is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material factas to that portion of the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (b); see also Lies v. FarrellLines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 769 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 authorizes a summaryadjudication that will often fall short of a final determination, even of a single