Hendrickson

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Hendrickson appeals pro se from *693 the district court’s orders granting attorney’s fees to defendants CDDVDGAMETRADER (“Trader”) and Kevin Naser in his copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review an award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion, Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553, 556 (9th Cir.1996), and we vacate and remand.

The district court did not provide a “concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).

Defendants Trader and Naser prevailed, but it is not evident that their role in the litigation “further[ed] the underlying purposes of the Copyright Act.” Fantasy, 94 F.3d at 555 . Neither Trader nor Naser raised the winning defense that the assignment of the original copyright was not renewable by Hendrickson. See id. at 557-58 ; see also Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.1991) (compensation for attorney’s fees is reasonable “for services that contribute to the ultimate victory in the lawsuit”). We are not persuaded that Hendrickson’s action was frivolous or objectively unreasonable, or…