Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)
The case revolves around a dispute between Sherman Nealy and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Nealy, who co-founded Music Specialist, Inc. in 1983, alleged that he held the copyrights to the company's songs and that Warner Chappell's licensing activities infringed his rights. The infringing activity, according to Nealy, dated back to 2008, ten years before he brought suit. Nealy sought damages and profits for the alleged misconduct, as authorized by the Copyright Act. To proceed with his claims, Nealy had to show they were timely under the Copyright Act, which requires a plaintiff to file suit "within three years after the claim accrued." Nealy argued that all his claims were timely under the discovery rule because he did not learn of Warner Chappell’s infringing conduct until 2016, less than three years before he sued.
In the District Court, Warner Chappell accepted that the discovery rule governed the timeliness of Nealy’s claims. However, it argued that even if Nealy could sue under that rule for infringements going back ten years, he could recover damages or profits for only those occurring in the last three. The District Court agreed, and Nealy appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, rejecting the notion of a three-year damages bar on a timely claim.
The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The 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. The Act’s statute of limitations establishes a three-year period for filing suit, which begins to run when a claim accrues. That provision establishes no separate three-year limit on recovering damages. If any time limit on damages exists, it must come from the Act’s remedial sections. 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. 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.
A copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et al. v. NEALY et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
No. 22–1078. Argued February 21, 2024—Decided May 9, 2024
Under the Copyright Act, a plaintiff must file suit “within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U. S. C. §507(b). On one understanding of that limitations provision, a copyright claim “accrue[s]” when “an infringing act occurs.” Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 670. But under an alternative view, the so-called discovery rule, a claim accrues when “the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered,” the infringing act. Ibid., n. 4. That rule enables a diligent plaintiff to raise claims about even very old infringements if he discovered them within the three years prior to suit. In this case, respondent Sherman Nealy invoked the discovery rule to sue Warner Chappell Music for copyright infringements going back ten years. Nealy argued that his claims were timely because he first learned of the infringing conduct less than three years before he sued. In the District Court, Warner Chappell accepted that the discovery rule governed the timeliness of Nealy’s claims. But it argued that, even if Nealy could sue under that rule for older infringements, he could recover damages or profits for only those occurring in the last three years. The District Court agreed. On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, rejecting the notion of a three-year damages bar on a timely claim.
Held: The Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. The Act’s statute of limitations establishes a three-year period for filing suit, which begins to run when a claim accrues (here, the Court assumes without deciding, upon its discovery). That provision establishes no separate three-year limit on recovering damages. If any time limit on damages exists, it must come from the Act’s remedial sections. 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.
The Court’s decision in Petrella also does not support a three-year damages cap. There, the Court noted that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations allows plaintiffs “to gain retrospective relief running only three years back from” the filing of a suit. 572 U. S., at 672. Taken out of context, that line might seem to address the issue here. But that statement merely described how the limitations provision worked in Petrella, where the plaintiff had long known of the defendant’s infringing conduct and so could not avail herself of the discovery rule to sue for infringing acts more than three years old. The Court did not go beyond the case’s facts to say that even if the limitations provision allows a claim for an earlier infringement, the plaintiff may not obtain monetary relief.
Unlike the plaintiff in Petrella, Nealy has invoked the discovery rule to bring claims for infringing acts occurring more than three years before he filed suit. The Court granted certiorari in this case on the assumption that such claims may be timely under the Act’s limitations provision. If Nealy’s claims are thus timely, he may obtain damages for them. Pp. 4–7.
60 F. 4th 1325, affirmed.
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. |
Argued. For petitioners: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Joe Wesley Earnhardt, New York, N. Y.; and Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) |
Reply of petitioners Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Amicus brief of Former Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Society of Entertainment & Arts Lawyers submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Authors Guild, Inc., The Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, The Graphic Artists Guild, The Romance Writers of America, The Songwriters Guild of America, Inc. and the Textbook & Academic Authors Association submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Society of Entertainment & Arts Lawyers filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Former Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Brief amici curiae of The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED. |
Record received from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Partial record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. |
Brief of Sherman Nealy, et al. submitted. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 21, 2024. |
Brief of Sherman Nealy, et al. not accepted for filing. (January 09, 2024--Corrected PDF and hard copy served on 1/5/24.) |
Brief of Sherman Nealy, et al. submitted. |
Brief of respondents Sherman Nealy, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Recording Industry Association of America and National Music Publishers’ Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of McHale & Slavin, P.A. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Authors Alliance, American Library Association an Association of Research Libraries submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted. |
Amicus brief of Association of American Publishers submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Publishers filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Recording Industry Association of America filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Authors Alliance, American Library Association an Association of Research Libraries filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of McHale & Slavin, P.A. in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of Krystina L. Cavazos, Orly Ravid, Robert C. Lind and Michael M. Epstein submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of American Intellectual Property Law Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Tyler T. Ochoa submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Southwestern Law Student Krystina Cavazos, et al. filed. |
Brief of Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. submitted. |
Brief of petitioners Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including November 24, 2023. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 5, 2024. |
Motion of Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. to dispense with joint appendix submitted. |
Letter re merits briefing schedule of Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. submitted. |
Motion for an extension of time file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. |
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether, 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), a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023. |
Reply of petitioners Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Recording Industry Association of America and National Music Publishers’ Association filed. |
Brief of respondents Sherman Nealy, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Krystina L. Cavazos, et al. filed |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 5, 2023) |