Decision of Note: <b>Copyright Damages Based on Each Work</b>

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided that, under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), statutory copyright damages for a single defendant should be based on the amount of works infringed, rather than the amount of infringements of those works. Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 03-2014.

The plaintiffs, children of the late composer Guillermo Venegas-Lloveras, sued over Sonolux Record's use of two of Venegas-Lloveras' songs on at least 16 albums. After Sonolux defaulted, the first district judge awarded the plaintiffs $1.6 million in statutory damages, based on $100,000 for each of the album uses. A second district judge denied Sonolux's motion to set aside the default judgment but reduced the award to $200,000.

Upholding the second district judge's decision and referring to the award by the first district judge, the 1st Circuit acknowledged, “The current statute represents a departure from the case law interpreting the statute under the earlier Act of 1909. … Indeed, problems with the old statute no doubt led to the revision.”

But also noting that both district judges had found the infringements to be willful (thus allowing for a maximum of $150,000 per infringement), the appeals court vacated and remanded the $200,000 award.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided that, under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), statutory copyright damages for a single defendant should be based on the amount of works infringed, rather than the amount of infringements of those works. Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 03-2014.

The plaintiffs, children of the late composer Guillermo Venegas-Lloveras, sued over Sonolux Record's use of two of Venegas-Lloveras' songs on at least 16 albums. After Sonolux defaulted, the first district judge awarded the plaintiffs $1.6 million in statutory damages, based on $100,000 for each of the album uses. A second district judge denied Sonolux's motion to set aside the default judgment but reduced the award to $200,000.

Upholding the second district judge's decision and referring to the award by the first district judge, the 1st Circuit acknowledged, “The current statute represents a departure from the case law interpreting the statute under the earlier Act of 1909. … Indeed, problems with the old statute no doubt led to the revision.”

But also noting that both district judges had found the infringements to be willful (thus allowing for a maximum of $150,000 per infringement), the appeals court vacated and remanded the $200,000 award.