This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

Nov. 6, 2014

Copyright law is never quite as simple as it seems

The recent "Raging Bull" decision, grounded in part on the virtue of predictability, has produced unpredictability regarding principles of repose in copyright cases. By Jeff Goldman


By Jeff Goldman


Laches is no longer a defense to claims for copyright infringement damages incurred within three years of suit. This seems to be what the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014). Or did it?


On the surface, Petrella seems straightforward enough; but in copyright law, nothing is as simple as it seems. So a decision grounded in part on the virtue of predictability has p...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up