Judge Louis L. Stanton of the SDNY is a senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 and still hearing cases nearly four decades later. He is best known for his rulings in Viacom International v. YouTube, the Ed Sheeran “Thinking Out Loud” copyright litigation, the Locast nonprofit streaming case, and several matters arising from the Bernard Madoff fraud.1Federal Judicial Center. Stanton, Louis Lee
Appointment and Time on the Bench
Louis Lee Stanton was born in New York City in 1927. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Yale in 1950 and his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1955, then spent three decades in private practice in Manhattan handling commercial litigation before taking the bench.1Federal Judicial Center. Stanton, Louis Lee
Reagan nominated him to the Southern District of New York on June 12, 1985, to fill the seat vacated by Judge Henry F. Werker. The Senate confirmed him on July 16, 1985, and he received his commission two days later. He assumed senior status on October 1, 1996, which lets a judge carry a reduced caseload while still presiding over significant matters. Stanton remained active well into the 2020s, deciding a major music copyright case as recently as 2023.1Federal Judicial Center. Stanton, Louis Lee
Viacom v. YouTube and the DMCA Safe Harbor
The case that drew the most attention during Stanton’s tenure was Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., a billion-dollar copyright dispute testing whether online platforms could be held liable for infringing clips uploaded by their users. Viacom argued YouTube knowingly hosted tens of thousands of unauthorized clips from its shows.
On June 23, 2010, Stanton granted YouTube summary judgment, holding that the platform was protected by the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under that provision, a service provider avoids liability for user-uploaded material if it lacks actual knowledge of specific infringing content, does not financially benefit from infringement it has the ability to control, and promptly removes material once notified of a valid claim.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 US Code 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online Stanton found YouTube met those requirements.3Justia. Viacom International Inc et al v Youtube Inc et al, No. 1:2007cv02103 – Document 364
The Second Circuit partially vacated the ruling and sent the case back for further analysis. On April 18, 2013, Stanton again granted summary judgment to YouTube. He concluded the platform did not have actual knowledge of any specific infringement of the Viacom works, was not willfully blind to those infringements, and did not have the “right and ability to control” the infringing activity in the way the statute requires. On the willful blindness point, he drew a distinction that has carried forward in internet law: general awareness that infringement occurs on a platform is not the same as knowledge of specific infringing clips. Viacom could identify only general indications of infringement somewhere on the site, not information in YouTube’s possession pointing to particular works.
The ruling helped define the legal framework that let user-generated content platforms operate at scale without a duty to proactively police every upload.
The Ed Sheeran “Thinking Out Loud” Cases
Stanton presided over two related copyright suits alleging that Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” The first, Griffin v. Sheeran, went to a jury, which found on May 4, 2023, that Sheeran did not infringe.4Justia Case Law. Structured Asset Sales LLC v Sheeran
The second, Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, involved a different plaintiff asserting the same copyright. Stanton had initially denied Sheeran’s motion for summary judgment, but twelve days after the jury verdict he reconsidered and granted it. He found his earlier decision had overlooked a numerosity requirement for claims based on the selection and arrangement of unprotected musical elements. The chord progression and harmonic rhythm shared by the two songs, he held, were so common in popular music that granting one songwriter a monopoly over them would lock up a basic building block of the genre. The Second Circuit affirmed on November 1, 2024.4Justia Case Law. Structured Asset Sales LLC v Sheeran
The Locast Nonprofit Streaming Ruling
In 2021, Stanton ruled against Locast, a nonprofit service that retransmitted live local television broadcasts over the internet. The major broadcast networks sued for copyright infringement, and Locast invoked the Copyright Act’s exemption allowing a nonprofit to retransmit broadcast signals without a license, provided it operates without commercial purpose and charges recipients no more than what is necessary to defray the actual costs of running the service.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 US Code 111 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Secondary Transmissions
Stanton found Locast failed that test. The service interrupted non-paying users every fifteen minutes with a donation request, which users could eliminate by paying five dollars a month. He treated those donations as what they functionally were, a tiered fee for uninterrupted access. The numbers bore it out: Locast’s 2020 revenue was roughly $4.5 million, with $4.3 million from user payments, against total operating costs of only $2.4 million. He also rejected the argument that the exemption covered expansion into new markets, holding that the cost-defraying language only reached maintaining and operating the existing service. The ruling effectively shut Locast down.
Madoff-Related Rulings and Pleading Standards
Stanton was assigned several cases arising from the Bernard Madoff fraud. The SEC filed its civil complaint in December 2008, and Stanton entered a consent preliminary injunction freezing assets on December 18, 2008.6U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Litigation Release No 20834 – Securities and Exchange Commission v Bernard L Madoff and Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC In February 2009, he accepted Madoff’s consent to a partial judgment making the injunction permanent.7U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Litigation Release No 20889 – Bernard L Madoff and Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC
A related case showed his approach to pleading standards. The SEC brought civil fraud charges against Robert Jaffe, a Madoff associate alleged to have funneled investors to the fund. In 2010, Stanton dismissed the charges, finding that the SEC had not alleged enough facts to support a plausible inference that Jaffe knew about or intended to further the fraud. Generalized suspicion and proximity to a fraudster were not enough; the agency needed to allege specific facts showing Jaffe’s awareness, and it had not.
How He Runs His Courtroom
Lawyers who appear before Stanton learn quickly that his Individual Practices set expectations well beyond the norm. Opening statements are capped at ten minutes per side in most cases. Counsel are forbidden from arguing the case or discussing the law during openings and must stick to a concise summary of the important facts. Lawyers must stand whenever addressing the court, including on objections, and may not pace during witness examination because, as the rules put it, pacing “distracts the jury and wastes time.”8United States District Court Southern District of New York. Individual Practices of Judge Louis L. Stanton – Section: Procedure during Trial
Stanton enforces the rules consistently, and that consistency is a large part of why he has a reputation as exacting but fair. Across copyright, securities, and nonprofit cases, the same temperament shows up in his written decisions: close attention to statutory text, skepticism of arguments that ask the court to stretch the law past what it says, and a preference for narrow holdings grounded in the specific facts in front of him.