Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
748 F.3d 120
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Psihoyos, a professional photographer, alleges Wiley infringed eight photographs in textbooks (2005–2009).
- Wiley later discovered unlicensed use of Narcoleptic Dog photos and disclosed two additional unlicensed works (Triceratops and Oviraptor).
- Psihoyos filed suit in March 2011 seeking infringement of eight photos; later identified mislabeling of Narcoleptic Dog photos in complaint.
- Wiley moved for summary judgment in Aug. 2011 based on § 507(b) three-year limit and § 411(a) preregistration; Psihoyos sought to amend for the correct Narcoleptic Dog photos.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment against Narcoleptic Dog and Dinamation claims; after trial, jurors found willful infringement for Triceratops and Oviraptor with damages awarded; remittitur/new trial denied.
- Appellate proceedings affirmed the district court’s rulings on accrual, registration, and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual of infringement claims | Psihoyos argues discovery rule applies. | Wiley favors injury-rule approach. | Discovery rule governs accrual; claims not time-barred. |
| § 411(a) registration before suit | Pending registrations satisfy preregistration. | Registration must be before suit; pending harms eligibility. | Pending applications do not retroactively satisfy preregistration; claims barred. |
| Amendment to correct photos and registration | Court should allow amendment to reflect correct Narcoleptic Dog photos. | Amendment would prejudice Wiley due to delay. | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied. |
| Damages for willful infringement | Jury’s awards reflect actual loss and deterrence. | Remittitur or new trial warranted due to excessive damages. | No abuse of discretion; damages upheld. |
| Remittitur/new trial standard | Remittitur not appropriate given evidence of willfulness. | Damages should be reduced or retrial granted. | District court’s denial of remittitur/new trial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merchant v. Levy, 92 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996) (discovery rule for copyright accrual)
- Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992) (discovery rule for accrual common)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court 2001) (TRW explains FCRA discovery rule not applicable to copyright)
- Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1984) (whether pending application constitutes registration under § 411(a))
- M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v. Ameron Homes, Inc., 903 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1990) (pre-registration / registration timing before suit)