Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright Plaintiffs Can Reach Back More Than Three Years In Seeking Infringement Damages, Ninth Circuit Rules
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?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.