Doc's Dream, LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc., 959 F.3d 357

Background

Dr. Eugene Scott created and broadcasted religious sermons, licensed distribution to Dolores Press, and bequeathed his copyrights to his widow, Melissa Scott.
In 2014 Patrick Robinson (Doc’s Dream) posted Scott’s works online after being refused permission and sued, claiming Scott had abandoned his copyrights and the works were in the public domain.
Dolores Press defended and obtained summary judgment rejecting Doc’s Dream’s abandonment claim; the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed aspects of the litigation in a related appeal.
Dolores moved for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505; the district court denied fees, reasoning a declaratory judgment on abandonment did not require construction of the Copyright Act and abandonment is a judge-made equitable doctrine.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit held that claims turning on the existence, scope, or abandonment of a copyright invoke the Copyright Act for § 505 purposes, vacated the denial of fees, and remanded for application of the governing fee factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a declaratory action alleging copyright abandonment is a “civil action under” the Copyright Act for § 505 fee purposes	Dolores: Yes — disputes over whether works fall outside copyright require construction of the Act, so § 505 applies	Doc’s Dream: No — action brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act and abandonment is a judicial doctrine outside the Act	Held: Yes — actions that turn on copyright validity, scope, or infringement (including abandonment) invoke the Copyright Act and can support § 505 fees
Whether the judicial origin of the abandonment doctrine places such suits outside § 505	Dolores: Origin doesn’t matter if resolution requires construing statutory copyright provisions	Doc’s Dream: Abandonment predates the Act and resembles general property law, so it’s outside Title 17	Held: Rejected — even if doctrinally judicial, adjudicating abandonment here required construing the Copyright Act (e.g., licensing, notices, attribution provisions)
Whether invoking the Declaratory Judgment Act precludes application of § 505	Dolores: DJA and Copyright Act operate together; DJA does not create federal jurisdiction alone	Doc’s Dream: Suit was a DJA action, not a copyright action	Held: Rejected — DJA does not supplant the Copyright Act; complaint alleged federal copyright questions and expressly invoked § 505 and federal jurisdiction
Whether district court properly exercised discretion in denying fees without applying fee factors	Dolores: District court declined fees based on mistaken legal premise	Doc’s Dream: District court exercised discretion based on its reading of the law	Held: Vacated and remanded — denial rested on erroneous legal view; district court must reconsider fee request under Fogerty/Kirtsaeng factors

Key Cases Cited

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) (Supreme Court guidance on awarding fees under the Copyright Act and discretionary factors)
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (Supreme Court: standards and discretion for fee awards in copyright cases)
Micro Star v. FormGen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) (analyzing abandonment with reference to license provisions of the Copyright Act)
Nat’l Comics Publ’ns v. Fawcett Publ’ns, 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951) (origin of the copyright-abandonment doctrine)
Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960) (adopting the Learned Hand abandonment standard in this circuit)
Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1993) (when a complaint arises under federal copyright law)
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not alter the types of issues that give access to federal courts)
Shame On You Prods., Inc. v. Banks, 893 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing discretionary nature of § 505 awards and appellate review)
Doc’s Dream, LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc., 766 F. App’x 467 (9th Cir. 2019) (prior appeal in these related proceedings)