Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split between the circuit courts over whether the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations limits the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover to a three-year period.

The Court ended the dispute in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy and held that a copyright plaintiff may recover all damages flowing from a timely filed infringement claim, even if they occurred more than three years before suit.

Notably, the Supreme Court did not resolve what constitutes a timely filed claim. Instead, it assumed without deciding that a claim could accrue “when the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringing act.” This is known as the “discovery rule.”  Some courts limit this rule or apply the “injury rule,” which states that a claim accrues when the injury occurs (i.e., infringement, not discovery of infringement).  While pending appeals may end this uncertainty, Nealy has several immediate implications for business:

Potential of increased liability: By allowing plaintiffs to seek all past damages, this decision increases financial exposure of alleged infringers.

Compounding confusion. While copyright owners now have greater incentive to pursue older infringements, the law is still unclear as to what constitutes a timely claim.  The result could lead to more protracted discovery and litigation fighting over what claims a copyright plaintiff may properly bring.

Due diligence: Businesses should consider enhancing copyright monitoring and management processes to ensure they are not unknowingly infringing copyright. This may include implementing formal internal processes designed to prevent unintentional infringement as well as digital content management systems equipped with copyright detection capability.

Important do’s and don’ts: In light of the potential for increased risk, some key considerations concerning copyright should be kept in mind.

• First, be judicious in using works from the Internet. Works are not in the public domain merely because they are online. So, businesses should be especially wary of using internet-based content without first vetting whether it is subject to a license, specific fees, or other restrictions.
• Second, do not assume that using a “small percentage” of a work is allowed. One defense to copyright infringement is fair use, which must be proven by the alleged infringer. Fair use has no bright-lined rules and is a complicated assessment of statutory factors that may require expensive discovery to prove. So, businesses should be cautious when relying on fair use.
• Third, periodically audit software agreements. Software is now a ubiquitous form of copyright that every business uses; however, many software platforms now lack traditional agreements and are subject to online terms and licenses that may go unreviewed. Software agreements should be thoroughly vetted to ensure that the license terms provide the level of rights your business needs for its intended use and to ensure current use does not exceed what is allowed under the agreement.

Mark Twain believed there was only one thing that was impossible for God: “to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.” While Nealy provides some insight, it leaves unanswered questions about copyright claims, perhaps proving Mr. Twain right (at least for now).

Unfortunately for businesses, this uncertainty only compounds risk associated with copyright litigation. So, act now to mitigate the risk of that litigation by implementing internal measures and training for your staff to properly vet these legal issues before using copyrighted material.

Otherwise, you may find yourself defending against copyright claims and spending valuable resources trying to make sense of copyright’s complex legal landscape.