Peter Csathy’s Post

Helpful Supreme Court decision for creators suing for copyright infringement and counterfeiting. While the statute of limitations for filing a copyright infringement claim in federal court is only three years, the Supreme Court held the three years starts at the time of discovery of the infringement, not when it actually took place. Here the creator was in prison for many years, and did not discover that his copyrighted songs had been infringed until after his release. However, there is no time limit on the damages the creator can recover: "But those provisions merely state that an infringer is liable either for statutory damages or for the owner’s actual damages and the infringer’s profits. See §504(a)–(c). There is no time limit on monetary recovery. So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim is entitled to damages for infringement, no matter when the infringement occurred. " #SupremeCourt #copyright #WarnerChappell #creators #infringement Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, 22-1078 (May 9, 2024) https://lnkd.in/euJsPhuV

Well, well, well... Supreme Court declined to limit Copyright damages to 3-Year Look Back. “There is no time limit on monetary recovery,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion. “So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.” Caveat: The Court clarified that it "assumes without deciding" that a claim is timely if filed within three years of discovering an infringement, regardless of when the infringement occurred. However, the Court noted that it has not definitively ruled on this assumption's validity, as the issue was not directly before them. Thus, while the decision does not restrict recoverable damages, it also does not broadly expand them. This is a solid first step in resolving an issue for all independent artists and producers, whose work has been sampled without a proper license, with bad actors hiding behind the "three years of damages only" interpretation. https://lnkd.in/eUszbSpF

Learn more from Intellectual Property partners Mike Nepple and Matt Braunel in our latest blog post below:

What does the latest #SCOTUS ruling mean for copyright cases? The Copyright Act’s three-year limitation period doesn’t limit damages to the three years before suit is filed. And in parts of the country, it currently doesn’t require you to sue within three years of the infringement. That is where things stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in music copyright case Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy. Learn more from Intellectual Property partners Mike Nepple and Matt Braunel in our latest blog post: https://bit.ly/3wvsWJF #copyrightinfringement #copyrightlaw #IP #intellectualproperty

Learn more from Intellectual Property partners Mike Nepple and Matt Braunel in our latest blog post below:

**Copyright Owners Win Big: Supreme Court Ruling on Damages for Infringement** The recent Supreme Court decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy has major implications for copyright law. The Court ruled that copyright holders can sue for damages from infringements, regardless of when they happened, as long as the lawsuit is filed within the legal timeframe. This is a win for creators! Previously, there was uncertainty about whether copyright holders could recover damages for infringements discovered after 3 years. This decision clarifies that timely filed claims can include damages for infringements beyond that window. However, there are dissenting voices questioning the application of the discovery rule itself. The long-term impact on the discovery rule remains to be seen. Read this article by Malabika Boruah and Raisha Bansal: https://lnkd.in/gCPd9jih #CopyrightLaw #IntellectualProperty #SupremeCourt #Creators #MusicIndustry

Learn more from Intellectual Property partners Mike Nepple and Matt Braunel in our latest blog post below:

Big news in the world of intellectual property! The U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that will impact copyright ownership disputes. In a 6-3 decision, the Court has allowed plaintiffs to recover damages beyond the three-year statute of limitations for bringing a claim. The case in question, Warner Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al., involved music producer Sherman Nealy, who sued Warner Chappell Music and Artist Publishing Group for using songs he claims to own without his permission. The Eleventh Circuit had previously ruled that Nealy could recover damages for injuries that allegedly happened more than three years before he filed his suit in 2018, which conflicted with a Second Circuit opinion from 2020 that limited damages to three years from the time of the complaint. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, which criticized the Second Circuit's view, stating that it has no textual support and is self-defeating. The Court held that a copyright owner possessing a timely claim is entitled to damages for infringement, regardless of when the infringement occurred. This ruling is a win for copyright holders and provides them with more flexibility to recover damages for past infringements. Check out the link below for more details on the case and the Court's decision. Link to the case: https://lnkd.in/d4H8D7xK #copyright #supremecourt #statuteoflimitations

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Decide Damages Period Under Copyright Act | Snell & Wilmer - JDSupra: The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether a copyright plaintiff's claim made under the discovery rule can seek retrospective relief for infringement that occurred over three years prior. Musician Sherman Nealy and Music Specialist Inc. sued Warner Chappell Music for copyright infringement, claiming that Warner used Nealy's musical works. (49 words) - IP topics: Intellectual Property topics! #ip #intellectualproperty #copyright

🎶⚖️ Important Copyright Discussion in the Music Industry! Early on in my career I had the privilege of working on the legal aspects of album releases for legendary artists including Sean Paul and Kevin Lyttle  navigating the challenges of protecting music rights amid global commercial expansion. A landmark lawsuit has surfaced, spearheaded by reggae pioneers like Steely & Clevie, against some of today's most influential artists. The focal point of this legal battle is the alleged unauthorized use of the "Dem Bow" riddim—a key element in reggaeton—which has been commercially leveraged on a global scale without due permissions. In the early days of 🇯🇲 Jamaican music, there was a cultural norm of responsibly borrowing musical elements, which fostered a rich, shared creativity. However, as long as I can remember, figures like Steely & Clevie have advocated for strict copyright enforcement, especially as their work became foundational to music listened to worldwide. This lawsuit underscores a pivotal issue: It’s not just about seeking royalties; it’s about respecting and recognizing the origins of musical genres that have enchanted global audiences. As music becomes more accessible and commercialized worldwide, the importance of acknowledging and compensating the original creators grows even more critical. Here is a question - how can the industry balance cultural heritage with legal protections?