Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Rightsholders Can’t Sue Without a Copyright Certificate, Supreme Court Rules
MARCH 5, 2019

The US Supreme Court has ruled that creators can't sue someone for copyright infringement before they've obtained a copyright registration certificate. In a unanimous decision, Justice Ginsburg clarifies that applying for a copyright registration is not sufficient. Major copyright holders are not happy with the decision, but for some others it may offer hope.

In pretty much every part in the world, creators can claim copyright on their work without having to register anything.

This is also true in the United States. However, when rightsholders want to sue someone for copyright infringement, they have to back up this claim.

Over the years, US courts have issued mixed judgments on what kind of ‘proof’ is required. Some held that it’s enough when a creator applied for a registration certificate at the Copyright Office, while others required registration to be completed.

This week the US Supreme Court put an end to the split decisions. In the case between Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation and Wall-Street.com, the Court unanimously decided that copyright holders must wait for a registration certificate before filing a lawsuit.

The case in question dealt with news articles that were published without permission, but the outcome of the case will affect all future copyright cases. This ranges from potential pre-release movie and leaks to the thousands of copyright-trolling cases that are filed every year.

The latter is particularly relevant as the majority of the copyright lawsuits are filed against BitTorrent downloader infringers. The rightsholders that file these suits don’t always have a copyright registration certificate. Following the Supreme Court decision, several defense attorneys indicated that this decision may help their clients.

“It is very relevant for our BitTorrent copyright defense practice,” Jeffrey Antonelli noted on Twitter.

Rightsholders are less pleased with the Supreme Court’s opinion, however. The RIAA said it is disappointed with the ruling which will require more time before copyright holders can take action against alleged copyright infringement.

“This ruling allows administrative backlog to prejudice the timely enforcement of constitutionally based rights and prevents necessary and immediate action against infringement that happens at Internet speed,” the RIAA commented.

“Given this ruling, the Copyright Office must also work at Internet speed to ensure adequate enforcement protects essential rights.”

At the moment it takes months before a copyright registration certificate is issued. That can be problematic in a world where new content is produced at an increasingly rapid rate. This problem is also highlighted by the Copyright Alliance.

“[O]n average, it takes the Copyright Office six months to process a claim. That average goes up to nine months, even over a year, if a Copyright Office Examiner needs to correspond with a copyright owner. In a world of viral, online infringement, a lot of damage can be done to a copyrighted work while an owner is powerless to stop it,” Copyright Alliance’s Terry Hart writes.

The Supreme Court is well aware of the registration delays. However, in the order, it notes that this doesn’t change how Congress intended the law, which requires a proper copyright registration certificate.

“Delays, in large part, are the result of Copyright Office staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow this Court to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text,” Justice Ginsburg notes.

While the ruling is seen as a drawback for rightsholders, pre-registration of copyright still remains available to certain classes. This was granted under the Artist’s Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 and applies to movies and music that have yet to be published.

For various types of user-generated content, the ruling may pose a challenge though. People who want to sue someone for copying their photos or viral video without permission will first need to go through the full registration process.

Bill_de Loc: US

Is this your original work?

--

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Good ol' government bureaucracy. We get penalized for waiting while the perps make the money. Always the same problem. Create a department or program, then complain you don't have enough staff or money to hire staff. Maybe someone doing their job instead of whining would speed up the process?
Ginsburg should have retired before dementia set in and all common sense and reason evaporated.
So what is the answer? The hell with deadlines, we need to wait a year for the certificate before publishing to keep the wolves at bay? Insanity!!!

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The copyright office recently raised fees; made registration massively burdensome; and limited the number of unpublished photos that could be registered in one application to a mere several hundred. (formerly, it was unlimited). Cynics speculated that the changes were made at behest of Google and other massive infringers.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

As much as I might question Justice Ginsburg's ability to serve at anything resembling an acceptable level, this was a unanimous decision. Condemn one, condemn all.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Dang!

cascoly Loc: seattle

huh?? why single out RBG? --what about the demented rulings of the FIVE right wingers who were part of this unanimous ruling??

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Well, that's nothing new, it has always been that way!

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

You are incorrect in stating that a registration certificate has always been required before filing a copyright lawsuit. Until this decision by SCOTUS, some federal courts required the plaintiff to have the certificate, while others only required that plaintiff had filed for the registration.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I understand the descision. Example. If you apply for a home mortgage, you can't pay for the house untill the mortgage is approved. Same kind of thing with the new decision.

Shutterbug57

No, it’s more like you get your mortgage and the lender has to file to protect their interest. That process takes months to a year. They cannot collect payments til the government has acted on their application.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The photographer now cannot protect his copyright until the indolent, incompetent, possibly corrupt copyright office meanders around to mailing his Registration. The poor right holder is victimized for years...

I have personally had the copyright office take up to 14 months. And that was with straightforward registrations with no correspondence.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

It really makes no difference how long the copyright process takes; theft of intellectual property is still an actionable case. The statute of limitations for intellectual property theft is 5 years.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Methinks it is THREE years, see:

Copyright infringement has a three-year statute of limitations indicating that “No civil action shall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. §507(b).

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

The far as I have been understanding, it has always been the way, that one does have the copyright to an image as soon as it is taken, but in order to be able to file a lawsuit, one has to have it registered so the lawsuit can take place! So I do not understand what's really new now!