DMCA Deadlines May Not Trump Registration Requirement for Copyright Infringement

03 December 2013 IP Litigation Current Blog

Before bringing an action for Copyright infringement in Federal Court, a Copyright holder must first register their Copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. See 17 U.S.C. § 411. This is true even though a Copyrighted work is automatically entitled to Copyright protection upon creation. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). However, whether registration has occurred for the purposes of complying with 17 U.S.C. § 411 is a point of disagreement amongst the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. Some Circuits follow the “application approach,” holding that receipt of an application for registration by the Copyright office is sufficient. Others follow the more stringent “registration approach,” requiring that the Copyright Office issue a certificate of registration prior to filing suit.

A recent decision of the Middle District Court in Tennessee, Schenk v. Orosz, Case No. 3:13-CV-0294, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160690 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2013), demonstrates the importance of knowing which approach applies in a particular jurisdiction, and makes clear that statutes that otherwise impose deadlines for filing a Copyright infringement suit, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) won’t otherwise excuse the “registration” requirement.

The Court in Schenk adopted the “registration approach” and dismissed claims for Copyright infringement over 21 works whose applications for registration were still pending before the Copyright office, consistent with other decisions of district courts within the Sixth Circuit. The Court applied this approach despite the fact that provisions of the DMCA effectively forced the plaintiff to file suit before certificates of registration issued for these works.

The defendant in Schenk was accused of displaying and selling a variety of goods on a website copyrighted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff served a takedown request on the defendant’s internet service provider (ISP) to remove the content pursuant to the DMCA. In response, the defendant served a counter-notice in an attempt to have the content reinstated, triggering a 14 day period for the plaintiff to file a Copyright infringement suit. Otherwise, the ISP would make the accused content available once again.  See 17 U.S.C. § 512. Plaintiff then filed suit within 14 days.

While the court noted that the notice-and-takedown provisions of the DMCA required plaintiffs to bring the copyright infringement action within 14 days of receiving the counter-notice, the Court held that this constraint did not excuse the failure to obtain Copyright registration prior to filing.

The Schenk decision serves as an important reminder of the importance of the registration requirement across different jurisdictions, and that additional restrictions on filing suit (such as deadlines under the DMCA) may not otherwise excuse compliance with the registration requirement. Practitioners considering engaging in the notice-and-takedown process under the DMCA should consider whether the jurisdiction in which they foresee filing suit applies the application approach or the registration approach, and determine to what extent works should be registered prior to serving a takedown request.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.