Supreme Court Says Courts Still Have Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Copyrights

from the how-big-a-deal-is-this? dept

There have been a series of lawsuits over the past decade or so concerning newspapers and magazines republishing old content that was created by freelancers in digital format. Basically, the publications had freelancers create content for publication. Years later, this wonderful world we know as the internet became a big deal (and, before that, CD-ROMs) and the publishers wanted to republish their archives in digital format (first CD-ROMs, then the internet or other electronic database). Some of the freelancers got upset, saying that the publications were reusing their content without permission, and that the license to use the content had been for the one use only. Lawsuits were filed and eventually, in the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the rights of freelancers. That set off a flurry of other similar/related lawsuits. In one of those other cases, the publisher and freelancers eventually reached a settlement — but not all of the freelancers were satisfied with it.

In appealing the settlement, it was noted that many of the freelancers had not registered their copyrights. Now, as you hopefully know, you automatically get copyright on any new content as soon as it’s set in tangible form, but if you decide to register it, it gives you additional privileges and remedies against infringement. In most cases, not having a registration greatly limits what you can do in terms of a lawsuit against infringement. So the issue in this lawsuit — Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick — became whether or not those unregistered stories (and their authors) could be covered by the settlement.

Copycense points us to the Supreme Court’s ruling (pdf) which says that, contrary to what the Appeals Court had ruled, it is perfectly fine to include unregistered copyrights in the court’s jurisdiction. While some are reporting that this means you no longer need to register to sue, I don’t think that’s what the ruling is actually saying. It simply says that just because you haven’t registered, it doesn’t mean that it’s outside of the court’s jurisdiction. So it sounds like this means that unregistered copyrights can get included in a settlement/class-action lawsuit like this one, but the holders of those unregistered copyrights might still have difficulty (or great limits) should they try to bring the lawsuit directly themselves. It would be great to get some of the copyright lawyers in the community here to weigh in as well.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: reed elsevier

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Supreme Court Says Courts Still Have Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Copyrights”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
7 Comments
Terry Hart (profile) says:

Doesn't change much

You absolutely still need a registration to sue in just about all cases. The distinction the court drew here was between jurisdictional prerequisites and mandatory rules – a distinction that on the surface can appear to be mere semantics.

Both bar you from bringing suit, the difference is that mandatory rules have some flexibility while jurisdictional requirements (subject matter jurisdiction, not personal) are for the most part completely rigid. You can’t consent to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, you can’t waive it, and if neither party brings the matter up, the court can throw the case out on its own initiative.

Matt (profile) says:

Re: Doesn't change much

What Terry said. The Court’s ruling here is not novel, and does not change much. Masnick’s interpretation seems right: federal courts can hear copyright cases involving unregistered copyrights, but holders of unregistered copyrights cannot bring such cases.

Where this may change things for some litigants is in counterclaims. If the registration bar were jurisdictional, a litigant could not bring a counterclaim alleging infringement of an unregistered copyright. If it is not, even though one cannot bring an original action one could file the claim as a counterclaim.

In practice, this means some litigants can save $35. It is common practice to simply register the copyright before filing. For most works doing so is cheap, easy, and noncontroversial, and avoids the question altogether.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

and then those republicans claim to be free market capitalists and that’s why they support allowing corporations to spend what they want on campaigns. Yet when it comes to free markets for the general public and non big corporations they are against free markets. They only want free markets for the rich, not for everyone else.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...