Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Supreme Court to Clarify When Copyright Owners Can Sue for Copyright Infringement

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: July 27, 2018

Key Contacts

Back

SCOTUS to Consider Circuit Split Regarding Whether Copyright Owners Must Fully Register Their Works Before Filing a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

With the justices headed to summer break, attention is turning to the U.S. Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October. There are several important cases already on the docket involving intellectual property rights, including Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC. The case should resolve over circuit split regarding whether copyright owners must fully register their works before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

SCOTUS to Consider When Copyright Owners Can File Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Photo courtesy of Raw Pixel (Unsplash.com)

Copyright Registration under the Copyright Act

The Copyright Act requires a copyright holder to register the work with the Copyright Office before suing 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.”

As Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. (Fourth Estate) noted in its petition for certiorari, the right to proceed with litigation does not depend on whether the registration is granted, though a certificate of registration obtained before or promptly after publication is advantageous when bringing a copyright infringement suit. Notably, if a plaintiff has a certificate of a registration “made before or within five years after first publication of the work,” the certificate “shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” The “evidentiary weight to be accorded” a certificate granted thereafter is left to the court’s discretion.

Circuit Split Over Section 411(a)

Fourth Estate owns the copyrights in those journalists’ works and licenses them to a cloud-based news organization called AHN Feed Syndicate. AHN Feed Syndicate subsequently licensed the content to other organizations, including Wall-Street.com, LLC (Wall- Street).

Under that license, if Wall-Street canceled its account with AHN Feed Syndicate, Wall-Street was to “stop display of all Feed Syndicate provided content and permanently take down, remove and/or delete all cached, saved, archived, stored or data- based content or data.” Wall-Street canceled its account but continued to copy and distribute 244 of Fourth Estate’s works.

In March 2016, Fourth Estate sued Wall-Street, seeking an injunction and damages. Before it did so, it filed its application for registration with the Copyright Office; it did not wait for the Office to act on that application. Nineteen months later, more than half the length of the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations, the application remains pending.

Wall-Street moved to dismiss, arguing that § 411(a) bars Fourth Estate from suing until after the Register of Copyrights acts on its application. The district court granted the motion, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It reasoned that the Act “defines registration as a process that requires action by both the copyright owner and the Copyright Office.” It further concluded that the use of the phrase “after examination” in § 410(a) – which describes the procedure that the Register must follow in registering a claim – “makes explicit that an application alone is insufficient for registration.” In further support of its decision, the Eleventh Circuit noted that § 410(b) authorizes the Register to “refuse registration,” reasoning that, if “registration occurred as soon as an application was filed, then the Register of Copyrights would have no power to ‘refuse registration.’”

Citing the growing circuit split about the meaning of the statutory phrase “registration . . . has been made” in § 411(a), Fourth Estate appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The United States Solicitor General filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the writ of certiorari in view of the circuit split on this issue.  On June 28, 2018, the justices agreed to consider the following question:

Whether “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of§ 411 (a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the Tenth Circuit and, in the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit have held.

While the Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC., our copyright attorneys will continue to track its progress and post updates as they become available.

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, Jason A. LaBerteaux, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, 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
BESS Safety and Emergency Response: Legal Issues for Developers and Property Owners post image

BESS Safety and Emergency Response: Legal Issues for Developers and Property Owners

As battery energy storage system (BESS) projects move from planning to construction, developers and property owners must address an issue that extends well beyond zoning approvals and interconnection agreements: what happens when something goes wrong? To avoid unforeseen liability, developers should address fire code compliance, emergency response planning, contractual risk allocation, and environmental liability before […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Safety and Emergency Response: Legal Issues for Developers and Property Owners"
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable? post image

Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?"
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery post image

How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery"
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore post image

The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore"
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers post image

BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers"
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected? post image

IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?"

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.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

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