Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Howard Shire and Justin Tilghman
June 01, 2024

In the case of Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078 (U.S. May 9, 2024), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Eleventh Circuit's ruling that, under the discovery rule, a party who files a timely claim for copyright infringement can recover monetary damages, even for copyright claims that date back more than three years from when the lawsuit was filed.

In 1983, Sherman Nealy and Tony Butler established Music Specialist, Inc., a music venture designed to help artists overcome the challenges of the music industry. The company released one album and several singles before dissolving a few years later. Nealy was subsequently sentenced to two separate prison terms for drug-related offenses. During Nealy's incarceration, Butler, without Nealy's knowledge, agreed to license Music Specialist's music to Warner Chappell Music. Notably, one of Music Specialist's songs, "Jam the Box," was used to create the hit song "In the Ayer" by artist Flo Rida. This song achieved significant commercial success, being licensed in several television shows.

After his second prison term, Nealy sued Warner in 2018 for copyright infringement. He claimed that he, not Butler, owned the copyrights to the licensed music and that Warner's use of the music infringed upon his copyrights. Nealy sought damages and profits for the alleged misconduct, claiming the infringement took place in 2008. Although his claims were timely under the discovery rule, Warner argued in the District Court that Nealy was limited to damages or profits for acts of infringement that occurred within the last three years, regardless of the timeliness of the complaint. The District Court agreed, ruling that Nealy could not recover damages for infringing acts beyond the three years prior to the suit having been filed. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, relying on the plain text of the Copyright Act to reject the position of a three-year damages bar on a timely claim. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision, holding that a plaintiff with a timely claim under the discovery rule is entitled to a monetary recovery, even if the infringement acts occurred more than three years ago.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.