Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Copyright owners must register their copyrights before filing suit in court

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: March 20, 2019

Key Contacts

Back

Supreme Court of United States Rules Copyright Owners Must Register Copyright Prior to Suit

You may have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a copyright owner can’t file an infringement lawsuit until the U.S. Copyright Office has granted a copyright registration for the subject work of concern. Once it has done so, a copyright owner may recover for copyright infringement that occurred both before and after registration.

Circuit Split Over Copyright Act Interpretation

The Copyright Act requires a copyright holder to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to bringing suit for copyright infringement. Specifically, Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act provides (with qualifications) that “no civil action for infringement of [a] copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”

Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the federal courts of appeals were divided regarding whether “registration . . . has been made” when a copyright owner submits the application, materials, and fee required for registration, or only when the Copyright Office grants registration.

In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. __ (2019), Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation (Fourth Estate) argued that a copyright “registration” is made as soon as the “complete application” is delivered to the Copyright Office, citing Ninth Circuit precedent in support. The news organization licensed works to respondent Wall-Street.com, LLC (Wall-Street), a news website. Fourth Estate sued Wall-Street and its owner for copyright infringement of news articles that Wall-Street failed to remove from its website after canceling the parties’ license agreement.

Fourth Estate had filed applications to register the articles with the Copyright Office, but the Register of Copyrights had not yet acted on those applications. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that “registration . . . has [not] been made” under §411(a) until the Copyright Office registers a copyright.

Supreme Court’s Decision in Fourth Estate

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. “We hold, in accord with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, that registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote on behalf of the unanimous Court. “Upon registration of the copyright, however, a copyright owner can recover for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.”

In reaching its decision, the Court cited the plain language of the Copyright Act. As Justice Ginsburg explained:

If application alone sufficed to “ma[ke]” registration, §411(a)’s second sentence—allowing suit upon refusal of registration—would be superfluous. What utility would that allowance have if a copyright claimant could sue for infringement immediately after applying for registration without awaiting the Register’s decision on her application? Proponents of the application approach urge that §411(a)’s second sentence serves merely to require a copy- right claimant to serve “notice [of an infringement suit] . . . on the Register.” This reading, however, requires the implausible assumption that Congress gave “registration” different meanings in consecutive, related sentences within a single statutory provision.

The Court noted that the registration approach reading of §411(a) is supported by other provisions of the Copyright Act. According to the Court, §410 confirms that application is discrete from, and precedes, registration, while §408(f)’s preregistration option would have little utility if a completed application sufficed to make registration.

The Court went on to reject Fourth Estate’s alternative interpretation, including the argument that, because “registration is not a condition of copyright protection,” §411(a) should not bar a copyright claimant from enforcing that protection in court once the owner has applied for registration. Justice Ginsburg wrote:

[T]he Copyright Act safeguards copyright owners, irrespective of registration, by vesting them with exclusive rights upon creation of their works and prohibiting infringement from that point forward. If infringement occurs before a copyright owner applies for registration, that owner may eventually recover damages for the past infringement, as well as the infringer’s profits. §504. She must simply apply for registration and receive the Copyright Office’s decision on her application before instituting suit.

The Supreme Court also noted that there are limited exceptions to the registration requirement. For example, a copyright owner who is preparing to distribute a work of a type vulnerable to predistribution infringement—e.g., a movie or musical composition—may apply to the Copyright Office for preregistration. A copyright owner may also sue for infringement of a live broadcast before “registration . . . has been made.”

Finally, while the Court acknowledged that registration processing times have increased from one to two weeks in 1956 to many months today, it concluded that such delays do not allow the Court to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text.

Key Takeaway for Copyright Owners

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, copyright owners must be expeditious in pursuing registration with the Copyright Office. When time is of the essence due to ongoing or threatening infringement, copyright owners may want to explore the Copyright Office’s “Special Handling” service, which can expedite the processing of a copyright application in the event of pending or prospective litigation. The shorter time frame of approximately five working days is certainly faster but does come at a cost of $800. To determine your best course of action, we always encourage consultation with an experienced intellectual property attorney.

If you have any questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, William R. Samuels, at 201-806-3364.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
New York NDA Requirements for Businesses post image

New York NDA Requirements for Businesses

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "New York NDA Requirements for Businesses"
New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained post image

New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained"
Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors post image

Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors"
SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies post image

SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies"
Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses post image

Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]

Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

Link to post with title - "Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses"
The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities post image

The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!