Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Supreme Court Settles Circuit Split on When a Plaintiff May Sue

By Sara L. Edelman of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Kate Barry of Davis+Gilbert LLP & Amy Mittelman formerly of Davis+Gilbert LLP on October 23, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous copyright decision in March 2019 with implications for anyone involved in a copyright dispute, as well as for marketers and brands that create and use copyrighted materials. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporationv. Wall Street.com, LLC (Fourth Estate), the Court resolved a long-standing split among the circuits over the requirement to obtain a copyright registration before filing a lawsuit.

The creator of an original work of authorship, such as a photograph, musical composition or screenplay, automatically obtains copyright protection in his or her work, which includes the right to prevent others from reproducing or displaying the work. But under Section 411 of the Copyright Act, a copyright owner may not file an infringement lawsuit until registration of the copyright “has been made” with the Copyright Office. The question in Fourth Estate was: what does “has been made” mean?

Until recently, courts were divided on this question: some allowed a copyright owner to file a lawsuit as soon as an application was filed with the Copyright Office (the application approach); while others held that a pending application was insufficient and that the Copyright Office must either issue a copyright registration or reject the application before a lawsuit may be filed (the registration approach).

In Fourth Estate, the Supreme Court settled the issue in favor of the registration approach, ruling that a copyright owner may not file an infringement lawsuit until after the Copyright Office has acted on the application by either issuing a copyright registration or refusing to do so.

One practical consequence of this decision is that a copyright owner may need to delay filing suit for an extended period of time because the Copyright Office can take up to 15 months to act on an application (and longer if the application is filed by mail). For some, this may result in significant consequences — a long wait time could create the risk of missing the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations. While seeking a registration on an expedited basis (approximately five business days) is available in certain circumstances (such as prospective litigation), the expedited handling fees ($800 as of this writing, as opposed to the single basic registration fee of $35) may be prohibitive for many parties. Moreover, if the Court’s decision results in an uptick in expedited registration applications, as is expected, even expedited review times could be delayed. This may be particularly problematic where a copyright owner is seeking an emergency court order, such as a preliminary injunction, to stop the sale of infringing goods and may need to rely on such expedited processing in order to commence
a lawsuit.

There are also implications for those who post and share content online. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides safe harbor provisions protecting online service providers (such as YouTube and Facebook) from liability for copyright infringement for content posted by their users. If a copyright owner files a DMCA takedown notice, the user may file a counter-notice stating that they had the rights to post the content, at which point the service provider must reinstate the content. However, if the copyright owner still believes that the use of the content was infringing, it must file a lawsuit within 14 days in order to have the content removed. Because of the Court’s decision, a copyright owner who does not have a registration in hand could face an uphill battle in removing content under the DMCA process.

The decision further underscores the importance of applying to register copyrighted material on a timely basis. Awards of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees are only available for infringements that occur after the registration date. Although the effective date of copyright registration is retroactive to the date on which the application was filed, it is worth remembering that failure to promptly apply to register a work with the Copyright Office may deprive the owner of significant potential remedies.

Savvy content creators should consider applying to register their copyrights regularly in the course of their business, so that they can act quickly in the event of an infringement and seek the recovery of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Key Takeaway:

  • Content creators should consider regularly filing copyright applications to avoid possible delays in the event of an infringement and maximize potential damages and the opportunity to seek the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Connect with Sara, Kate and Amy on LinkedIn. 

Photo of Sara L. Edelman of Davis+Gilbert LLP Sara L. Edelman of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Sara Edelman helps content creators, advertising agencies and fashion companies navigate copyright, right-of-publicity and talent issues to produce compelling and creative content for their brands. She negotiates talent, sponsorship, artwork, music and production agreements; performs apparel clearances; and resolves copyright and intellectual property…

Sara Edelman helps content creators, advertising agencies and fashion companies navigate copyright, right-of-publicity and talent issues to produce compelling and creative content for their brands. She negotiates talent, sponsorship, artwork, music and production agreements; performs apparel clearances; and resolves copyright and intellectual property disputes.

In the fast-paced worlds of advertising, content creation and fashion, Sara is a savvy and responsive partner ready to address her clients’ content production needs quickly. She understands their business, considers their risk tolerance, and gets the job done. Content creators of all stripes and sizes count on her to meet their aggressive timelines when reviewing their advertising materials and other creative content. She negotiates their rights to produce that content with airtight agreements for high-level talent, music, artwork and props.

A visual arts enthusiast and an avid photographer, Sara uses her keen eye to evaluate her clients’ work for potential copyright liability. She knows how close is “too close” to draw inspiration for content without infringing the rights of others, and how a claim will play out in litigation.

When copyright, right-of-publicity and other intellectual property claims arise, Sara embraces her clients’ issues as her own. A former litigator and a tough negotiator, her solid, practical advice addresses the needs and interdependence of all parties involved. She uses creative suggestions and guidance to resolve disputes as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

Read more about Sara L. Edelman of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailSara's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Kate Barry of Davis+Gilbert LLP Kate Barry of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Kate Barry helps companies launch innovative advertising campaigns and protect their intellectual property from infringement. Her in-depth experience with a wide range of copyright, social media, and consumer protection issues is an asset to advertising agencies and clients in the technology, media, and…

Kate Barry helps companies launch innovative advertising campaigns and protect their intellectual property from infringement. Her in-depth experience with a wide range of copyright, social media, and consumer protection issues is an asset to advertising agencies and clients in the technology, media, and consumer goods industries, especially when negotiating talent, licensing and marketing agreements.

Kate leverages her love of pop culture and the latest social media trends to enable clients to connect with target audiences and address evolving issues in real-time. She supports the development of User Generated Content (UGC) across social media platforms, negotiates influencer marketing agreements, and advises on compliance with the FTC Endorsement Guides.

Kate supports clients in all aspects of their copyright concerns: from registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, to enforcing their copyrights and defending against copyright claims. She also helps clients clear third-party assets for use, evaluate right of publicity issues, and navigate First Amendment and defamation matters. With her regulatory knowledge, she advises on structuring compliant price advertising strategies, text messaging campaigns, and sweepstakes and promotions.

Before she joined Davis+Gilbert in 2016, Kate was the legal fellow at Gannett Co., Inc. where she advised newsroom, product and custom content teams at USA TODAY and 100+ publications on a variety of marketing and newsgathering issues.

Read more about Kate Barry of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailKate's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Amy Mittelman formerly of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Amy Mittelman is formerly with Davis+Gilbert LLP

Read more about Amy Mittelman formerly of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmail
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo