Attorney Fees Update

Copyright Infringement; Sec. 505

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a defense motion under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act for attorney fees and costs incurred in successfully defending against a song infringement claim. Lowe v. Loud Records, 01-1797. The district court previously decided that plaintiff Michael Lowe had granted the defendants, which included hip-hop producer Dr. Dre, an implied license to use Lowe's “West Coast Beat” in the song “X” by Xihibit. The court then dismissed Lowe's state negligence claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Dr. Dre moved for a Sec. 505 award of $64,992.50 in attorney fees and $8,569.94 in costs, noting that he had been responsible for the defense of nine California defendants.

The district court first noted that Young was entitled to the Sec. 505 award because Lowe had admitted giving the defendants “West Coast Beat” to use. According to the court: “In light of Lowe defeating his own claim, it appears that the factual and legal components of Lowe's copyright infringement claim were objectively unreasonable and, it can be argued, frivolous.” The court awarded the full defense cost request but reduced Dr. Dre's attorney fees request to $26,609.40 by determining the portion of the total attorney fees charged that were reasonably expended in defending against the copyright infringement claim.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for attorney fees by prevailing copyright infringement defendants. Penguin Books U.S.A. Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., 96-4126. Penguin Books had filed suit, claiming infringement of its text “A Course in Miracles.” But Penguin Book's copyright was found invalid due to prior publication without copyright notice. The defendants then moved for an award of attorney fees under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act. The district court decided, however, that the defendants had failed to show that Penguin Books' claim was objectively unreasonable. According to the court: “While Plaintiffs' suit was ultimately unsuccessful, a preliminary injunction against the Church was obtained, Plaintiffs' claim withstood summary judgment, and Plaintiffs were able to eliminate twelve of the thirteen affirmative defenses asserted by the Church. … It was only after a three-day trial that certain complex factual issues were eventually determined in the Church's favor and the copyright was rendered invalid.”

The district court also found that the purposes of the Copyright Act wouldn't be promoted by imposing an attorney fees award because “Plaintiffs here established a prima facie case which, by being subject to a successful defense, helped to delineate the specific parameters of the issue of prior publication.” Finally, the defendants argued that it had weaker financial resources that justified an attorney fees award. But the district court emphasized that “financial disparities may be a factor considered in determining the magnitude of an award once it has been resolved that such an award is appropriate.”

Copyright Infringement; Sec. 505

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a defense motion under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act for attorney fees and costs incurred in successfully defending against a song infringement claim. Lowe v. Loud Records, 01-1797. The district court previously decided that plaintiff Michael Lowe had granted the defendants, which included hip-hop producer Dr. Dre, an implied license to use Lowe's “West Coast Beat” in the song “X” by Xihibit. The court then dismissed Lowe's state negligence claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Dr. Dre moved for a Sec. 505 award of $64,992.50 in attorney fees and $8,569.94 in costs, noting that he had been responsible for the defense of nine California defendants.

The district court first noted that Young was entitled to the Sec. 505 award because Lowe had admitted giving the defendants “West Coast Beat” to use. According to the court: “In light of Lowe defeating his own claim, it appears that the factual and legal components of Lowe's copyright infringement claim were objectively unreasonable and, it can be argued, frivolous.” The court awarded the full defense cost request but reduced Dr. Dre's attorney fees request to $26,609.40 by determining the portion of the total attorney fees charged that were reasonably expended in defending against the copyright infringement claim.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for attorney fees by prevailing copyright infringement defendants. Penguin Books U.S.A. Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., 96-4126. Penguin Books had filed suit, claiming infringement of its text “A Course in Miracles.” But Penguin Book's copyright was found invalid due to prior publication without copyright notice. The defendants then moved for an award of attorney fees under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act. The district court decided, however, that the defendants had failed to show that Penguin Books' claim was objectively unreasonable. According to the court: “While Plaintiffs' suit was ultimately unsuccessful, a preliminary injunction against the Church was obtained, Plaintiffs' claim withstood summary judgment, and Plaintiffs were able to eliminate twelve of the thirteen affirmative defenses asserted by the Church. … It was only after a three-day trial that certain complex factual issues were eventually determined in the Church's favor and the copyright was rendered invalid.”

The district court also found that the purposes of the Copyright Act wouldn't be promoted by imposing an attorney fees award because “Plaintiffs here established a prima facie case which, by being subject to a successful defense, helped to delineate the specific parameters of the issue of prior publication.” Finally, the defendants argued that it had weaker financial resources that justified an attorney fees award. But the district court emphasized that “financial disparities may be a factor considered in determining the magnitude of an award once it has been resolved that such an award is appropriate.”