Re: Question on liability for falsely asserting copyright protection

In a declaratory judgment action that proves false the assertion of copyright, the prevailing party should be entitled to costs and attorneys fees (at the discretion of the court).

17 USC 5050: "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs."

Although I am not aware of any declaratory action case in which Section 505 costs and fees were awarded, when Dan Fogerty won his defense of a claim of copyright infringement, the Supreme Court very forcefully stated that a prevailing defendant was just as entitled as a prevailing plaintiff would have been, given that it is just as important to prevent copyrights from being asserted beyond their limits as it is to enforce them up to their limits.

John

John T. Mitchell
http://interactionlaw.com

On May 25, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brewer, Michael wrote:

> All,
>
> This is my first post to this list, so forgive me if it is uniformed.
>
> I am curious as to whether or not those who falsely assert that
> they own
> the copyright to works are in any way liable for that false assertion.
> Obviously, those who infringe on the copyright of others are liable
> for
> damages, but are those who assert ownership (thus depriving the public
> of free access to use that material) liable for that? Has any case
> like
> this ever gone through the courts?
>
> I have noticed on a number of occasions institutions asserting
> copyright
> for things that are clearly in the public domain. They may own the
> physical item, but, for example, they will attach a copyright
> statement
> to reproductions of that item (I am talking here only about exact
> replications of 2 dimensional works, not 3 dimensional works or
> photographs of items that could be construed to constitute a "new
> work").
>
> I have no interest in pursuing any person or institution that has
> falsely asserted copyright. I am just curious as to how the law would
> deal (or has dealt) with this sort of thing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> Slavic Studies, German Studies & Media Arts Librarian
> University of Arizona Library A210
> 1510 E. University
> P.O. Box 210055
> Tucson, AZ 85721
> Voice: 520.307.2771
> Fax: 520.621.9733
> brewerm[_at_]u.library.arizona.edu
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://
> mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
Received on Fri May 26 2006 - 01:40:45 GMT