Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com

Last updated

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 8, 2019
Decided March 4, 2019
Full case nameFourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, et al.
Docket no. 17-571
Citations586 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 881; 203 L. Ed. 2d 147; 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, No. 0:16-cv-60497 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2016); affirmed, 856 F.3d 1338, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1586 (11th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018).
Holding
A registration certificate must be provided before a lawsuit can be filed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court unanimously ruled that a copyright infringement suit must wait until the copyright is successfully registered by the United States Copyright Office. [1]

Contents

Background

While the Copyright Act of 1976 grants automatic copyright privileges to an author when it is published to the public, the Act also requires "registration" of that copyright with the Copyright Office before bringing an infringement suit if the author is American. [2] There had been a Circuit split about whether this "registration" required the Copyright Office to grant or deny the certificate of registration, or whether applying for the certificate could qualify as registration. Some circuit courts, such as the Eleventh and Tenth, held that is considered registered upon the copyright's approval by the Copyright Office, known as the "registration approach." Others, including the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, held that registration occurs upon the application for registration, with the associated deposit and fee; this was known as the "application approach." [1] [3]

Fourth Estate wrote articles and licensed them for publication by other entities. One of their clients, Wall-Street.com, cancelled their licensing arrangement, and the license required Wall-Street.com to remove the content from their site, which they refused to do. Fourth Estate sued for copyright infringement, after having submitted their application for registration but without having waited for the registration to be approved. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [4] ruled that the infringement suit could not be brought because of that lack of approval. [5] [6]

Supreme Court

The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, with oral arguments heard on January 9, 2019. [7] Fourth Estate was represented at oral arguments by Aaron M. Panner. [8] Peter K. Stris [9] represented Wall-Street and Jerrold Burden.

Fourth Estate contended that the Eleventh Circuit misread the statute, and believed that the requirement of "registration" refers to the action of the copyright holder, and not an action of the Copyright Office. Further, they contended normatively that a copyright holder's rights should not depend upon affirmative government action. [1]

The court ruled on March 4, 2019, that a registration certificate must be provided before a lawsuit can be filed. [10] [11]

Comments on the decision

It has been observed by one commentator that a decision in Fourth Estate's favor would essentially remove the Copyright Office's role in the process of moving copyright infringement cases to litigation, [1] and concerns about the practical implications of litigating prior to the Register's grant or denial of registration were a prominent theme at the oral arguments. [12]

Others have observed that the practical effect is minimal, since although the turnaround time for a registration with the Copyright Office can be months at a time, the Office offers an $800 expedited review process for cases with "compelling needs" like upcoming lawsuits, [3] and offers preregistration for categories of works more likely to be infringed. [11] Moreover, plaintiffs can recover for any losses accrued from infringement, even while waiting for the examination to be complete. [11]

The decision applies only to filing copyright litigation, and does not apply to other forms of enforcement, such as sending demand letters or issuing DMCA Section 512 takedown notices.

Related Research Articles

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Press Photographers Association</span>

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) is an American professional association made up of still photographers, television videographers, editors, and students in the journalism field. Founded in 1946, the organization is based in at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia. The NPPA places emphasis on photojournalism, or journalism that presents a story through the use of photographs or moving pictures. The NPPA holds annual competitions as well as several quarterly contests, seminars, and workshops designed to stimulate personal growth in its members. It utilizes a mentor program which offers its members the opportunity to establish a relationship with a veteran NPPA member and learn from them. The organization also offers a critique service, a job bank, an online discussion board, and various member benefits.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

Twentieth Century Music Corp v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975), was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court, out of the Third Circuit, that questioned whether the reception of a copyrighted song on a radio broadcast constitutes a copyright violation if the copyright owner has only licensed the broadcaster to "perform the composition publicly for profit".

Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office. It is contrasted with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright of the works lawfully made or purchased abroad.

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nautilus Productions</span> American video production, stock footage, and photography company

Nautilus Productions LLC is an American video production, stock footage, and photography company incorporated in Fayetteville, North Carolina in 1997. The principals are producer/director Rick Allen and photographer Cindy Burnham. Nautilus specializes in documentary production and underwater videography, and produced QAR DiveLive, a live webcast of underwater archaeology filmed at the wreck of the Queen Anne's Revenge in 2000 and 2001.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review a denial of class certification after plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Copyright Act of 1909's deposit requirement did not require immediate deposit, or deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement.

Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a 2019 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Copyright Act's award of "full costs," to a prevailing party in a copyright infringement claim is limited to taxable costs defined by the Fee Act of 1853, rejecting a broader interpretation that permitted fee awards to include litigation expenses outside the statutory schedule of costs.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015), was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for induced patent infringement. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point, arguing that, in his view, a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, was a 2020 decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding whether inter partes review institution decisions by the United States Patent and Trademark Office were subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion finding that such decisions were not judicially reviewable. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's ruling, arguing that neither Congress or the Constitution authorized a lack of judicial review of such decisions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lisa Blatt</span> American lawyer

Lisa Schiavo Blatt is an American lawyer who serves as partner and chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate practice at the law firm Williams & Connolly. As of March 2023, she has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 46 times — the most of any woman in U.S. history. In more than eighty percent of those cases, the Court ruled in favor of her client, one of the highest success rates for a Supreme Court advocate. Fortune has identified her as "the woman in private practice who appears most frequently at the court". In 2021, she was named the "Litigator of the Year" by the American Lawyer. In the same year, she was named "Practitioner of the Year (Appellate)" by Managing IP for her work in the Supreme Court case Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Pottinger, Nicole E. (July 20, 2018). "A (Brief) Overview of Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC". Kentucky Law Journal. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  2. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 412
  3. 1 2 Wharton, Jake (June 28, 2018). "Supreme Court to Resolve Copyright Registration Circuit Split". IPWatchdog.com. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  4. ↑ Wall-Street.Com and Burden were represented by attorney David A. Geller at the Trial Court and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  5. ↑ Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 856F.3d1338 ( 11th Cir. 2017).
  6. ↑ McCall, Angélique (July 22, 2018). "US Supreme Court Tackles Copyright Registration Circuit Split". IPWatchdog.com. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  7. ↑ Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com,138S. Ct.2707(2018).
  8. ↑ "US Supreme Court Grants Review for Certiorari in Fourth Estate v Wall-Street". Fourth Estate. June 28, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  9. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, Peter Stris to Argue". Stris & Maher LLP. June 28, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
  10. ↑ Ernesto (March 5, 2019). "Rightsholders Can't Sue Without a Copyright Certificate, Supreme Court Rules". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on March 5, 2019. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
  11. 1 2 3 Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com,No. 17-571 , 586 U.S. ___(2019).
  12. ↑ Jessica Litman, "Argument analysis: Justices wade deep into the copyright weeds", SCOTUSBlog, Jan. 9, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.