Supreme Court Opens Door for Copyright Claims Reversal

A recent case before the Supreme Court could dramatically impact when copyright infringement cases can be filed.

In Warner Chappell v. Nealy Music, Inc., the court addressed the question of when a copyright plaintiff must file the claim or be barred from doing so due to the statute of limitations.

The answer could extend the three-year deadline for plaintiffs.

Changing the Rules

At the heart of the decision is when the infringement was discovered or should have been discovered by the plaintiff.

A report in the Daily Record stated, “How this question was answered might be the difference between being able to pursue a claim that arose more than three years before suit was filed.

“As it was answered, the three-year statute of limitations is not an absolute bar to filing suit in every case of infringement.”

In her opinion, Justice Elana Kagan opened the door to that three-year window not being set in stone.

The key to that decision was her using the word “timely,” which has been interpreted to mean that within a reasonable amount of time of discovery of the infringement.

The report explained, “How this question was answered might be the difference between being able to pursue a claim that arose more than three years before the suit was filed.

“As it was answered, the three-year statute of limitations is not an absolute bar to filing suit in every case of infringement.”

For example, if the infringement took place 20 years ago, but the plaintiff was unaware or had no way of being reasonably informed of the infringement, the clock would not apply as long as the case was filed in a timely fashion after the discovery was made.

This is a game changer for copyright holders and could open the floodgates for older cases that were denied which had fallen outside that window.