copyright infringement

Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick

Issues

Whether the registration requirement contained in § 411(a) of the Copyright Act is jurisdictional, denying district courts jurisdiction over claims arising from the infringement of unregistered copyrights.

 

Freelance writers, led by Letty Cotton Pogrebin, brought a class action lawsuit against publishers, led by Reed Elsevier, Inc., for copyright infringement, claiming that the publishers electronically reproduced their works without authorization. The majority of the claims in the class related to alleged infringements of unregistered copyrights. With the approval of the District Court, the parties settled the lawsuit. The Second Circuit held, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to certify a class or to approve a settlement with respect to claims arising from unregistered copyrights. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 411(a) will determine whether claims relating to unregistered copyrights can be settled in class actions along with claims arising from registered work. An affirmation of the Second Circuit’s opinion may make settlements more difficult.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions?

Petitioners, Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al. (“Reed Elsevier”), are publishers of electronic content, such as the New York Times Co. and archival database operators, such LexisNexis. See Brief for Petitioners, Reed Elsevier Inc., et al.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Civil Procedure and Federal Courts Blog, Law Professor Blogs Network: Case of Interest--Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick

·      NY Times: Supreme Court to Revisit a Case on Breach of Copyright

·      Wired: Supreme Court to Hear Freelance Writers' Settlement

Submit for publication
0

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

Issues

Must copyright registration applications containing inaccuracies be referred to the Copyright Office when those inaccuracies show no indicia of fraud or material error related to the work at issue under the Copyright Act?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the precise meaning of the “knowledge” standard in the Copyright Act. Section 411 of the Copyright Act provides that a copyright registration is inadequate when it includes information that was included with “knowledge that it was inaccurate.” Petitioner Unicolors, Inc. (“Unicolors”) argues that Section 411’s “knowledge” requirement excludes mistakes that are made in good faith and without fraudulent intent. Respondent H&M (“H&M”) counters that the plain meaning of the word “knowledge” indicates that so long as a copyright registrant is aware of the inaccuracy of the information, it is immaterial whether they intended to defraud. This case has significant implications for principles of statutory interpretation, copyright law, and the direction of future copyright infringement litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration.

Unicolors creates and copyrights artwork that it eventually prints and markets to garment manufacturers. Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. at 1196. Unicolors markets some of its designs to the general public by placing them in a public showroom.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to copyright infringement