Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v Nealy.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the discovery accrual rule applied by the circuit courts and the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U-S-C § 507(b), may a copyright plaintiff recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit?

The case was decided on May 9, 2024.

The Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.

The Copyright Act’s statute of limitations provision establishes a three-year period for filing a copyright infringement suit, which begins to run when the claim accrues. This case assumes that a copyright claim accrues upon discovery of the infringement (the “discovery rule”), rather than when the infringement occurred, although the Court has not definitively resolved which rule applies. If a plaintiff has a timely claim under the discovery rule, the Act’s remedial provisions do not impose any separate time limit on the recovery of damages. Those provisions state, without qualification, that an infringer is liable for either statutory damages or the owner’s actual damages and the infringer’s profits.

The Second Circuit’s view, relying on language from the Court’s decision in Petrella v MGM, that damages are limited to the three years prior to filing suit, even if earlier infringements are timely under the discovery rule, lacks textual support and effectively nullifies the discovery rule. The Court’s decision in Petrella does not support such a damages cap, as the Court merely described how the limitations provision works when a plaintiff, as in that case, has no timely claims for infringing acts more than three years old. In contrast, if a plaintiff like Nealy in this case has timely claims for earlier infringements under the discovery rule, he may obtain damages for those infringements, as the Copyright Act contains no separate time-based limit on monetary recovery.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined, arguing that the discovery rule of accrual, which the majority assumes without deciding in this case, is decidedly incorrect, and thus that any decision that relies on that rule is likely to soon become a “dead letter.”

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.