Supreme Court Rulings Redefine Copyright Law: Major Decisions of 2024

The conversation delves into three major cases. The first of these, Warner Chappell v Neely, addresses the statute of limitations in copyright plepl. Typically, the Copyright Act provides for a three-year statute of limitations from when the plaintiff discovers the infringement. The Supreme Court’s decision focused on whether damages should be limited to three years if the claim is deemed timely under the discovery rule. They ruled that plaintiffs could potentially recover damages dating back to the actual occurrence of the infringement, not just three years prior to the lawsuit. This decision is seen as plaintiff-friendly, allowing for more extensive claims, though it raises concerns about proof difficulties for older claims.

The second case, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v Goldsmith, examines the concept of “transformative” use in fair use doctrine. The case originated from a photograph of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith, which Warhol used to create a series of silkscreen prints. When a different version of Warhol’s print was used in a 2016 Condé Nast magazine, Goldsmith sued. The Supreme Court focused on the commercial nature of the use rather than the transformative nature of the artwork itself, concluding that the commercial licensing of Warhol’s work for a magazine was not transformative enough to qualify as fair use. This ruling narrows the scope of what constitutes transformative use, potentially impacting future cases, especially those involving AI and derivative works.

The final discussion involves the sister cases Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce, which overruled Chevron deference – a doctrine granting agencies significant leeway in interpreting statutes. The Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate Chevron deference means that courts now have more freedom to disagree with agency interpretations. This shift could lead to inconsistencies and challenges in areas where agency expertise is crucial, including copyright law. The ruling is significant as it questions the long-standing principle of judicial deference to federal agencies, potentially affecting various areas of law beyond copyright.