Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Under Section 507(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act, an infringement claim isn't timely filed "unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued." In its recent decision in Starz Entertainment LLC v. MGM Domestic Television Distribution LLC, 21-55379 (9th Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted: "Generally, the claim 'accrues' when the infringement or violation of one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights occurs, known as the 'incident of injury rule.' In our circuit, and every other circuit to have reached the question, an exception to that infringement rule has developed. Known as the 'discovery rule,' a claim alternatively accrues when the copyright holder knows or reasonably should know that an infringement occurred."
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), a case filed by the heir of the rights to the screenplay underlying the movie Raging Bull, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a majority opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg that a "laches" defense didn't bar a copyright infringement lawsuit filed within §507(b)'s three-year statute of limitations. (Laches can apply if a delay in filing a suit by a plaintiff, who knew or should have known of an alleged wrong, prejudices the defendant.)
But how far back from accrual of a claim may a plaintiff reach for copyright damages?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.