65 F.4th 231
5th Cir.2023Background
- In 2015 Antonio Martinelli photographed the Lugalla estate for Sotheby’s; Hearst later published those photos in multiple web-only articles in March 2017 and shortly thereafter.
- Martinelli first discovered the Houston Chronicle use on November 17, 2018, and discovered other Hearst uses between September 2019 and February 2020; Hearst stipulated Martinelli could not have discovered those uses earlier with reasonable diligence.
- Martinelli sued Hearst for copyright infringement on October 18, 2021, and amended to add additional websites and a Hearst magazine defendant in February 2022—within three years of discovery but more than three years after the alleged infringements occurred.
- The parties stipulated Hearst infringed and that damages would be $10,000 if Martinelli prevailed; cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- The district court applied this circuit’s discovery-rule precedent (Graper) to hold Martinelli’s claims timely and granted summary judgment for Martinelli; Hearst appealed, arguing Supreme Court decisions (Petrella, Rotkiske) undermined Graper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a copyright claim accrue under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) for the three‑year limitations period? | Martinelli: accrual occurs when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury (discovery rule). | Hearst: accrual occurs when the infringing act occurs (no discovery rule); Petrella and Rotkiske undermine Graper. | The Fifth Circuit affirmed Graper: the discovery rule governs § 507(b) here; Petrella and Rotkiske did not unequivocally overrule Graper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graper v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 756 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2014) (applies discovery rule to § 507(b) accrual question)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) (holds laches cannot bar timely copyright damages and describes separate-accrual rule; expressly did not decide discovery-rule question)
- Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019) (interprets FDCPA limitations language to start on violation date; emphasized statutory text governs discovery-rule inquiries)
- SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017) (confirms Petrella did not resolve discovery-rule questions across other statutes)
- In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th 787 (5th Cir. 2021) (example where intervening Supreme Court precedent justified departing from circuit precedent)
- Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020) (Second Circuit declined to abandon its discovery-rule precedent post-Petrella/Rotkiske)
- Starz Ent. LLC v. MGM Domestic TV Dist., LLC, 39 F.4th 1236 (9th Cir. 2022) (Ninth Circuit reaffirmed discovery rule after Petrella)