美國第二巡回法院裁決，版權(quán)賠償不受訴訟時效法律的束縛

【小D導(dǎo)讀】 2005年至2009年，John Wiley & Sons將專業(yè)攝影師Louis Psihoyos拍攝的8張照片用到了其出版的教科書中。

美國第二巡回上訴法院同意地方法院的裁決，即訴訟時效法律不會終止《國家地理雜志》攝影師要求教科書出版商支付版權(quán)侵權(quán)的索賠。

2010年11月，在Wiley發(fā)現(xiàn)該出版商在未經(jīng)其允許的情況下，在其出版的幾本教科書中使用了他拍攝的一張斯坦福大學(xué)教授手里抱著猝睡癥吉娃娃的照片后，他試圖與Psihoyos達(dá)成一項有追溯力的授權(quán)協(xié)議。

在得知Wiley使用了他的一張猝睡癥吉娃娃的照片后，Psihoyos要求Wiley公開其他未得到其授權(quán)的照片。

后來，Wiley查了其記錄，發(fā)現(xiàn)自己還出版了一張未經(jīng)攝影師允許的三角龍骨架和偷蛋龍的其中一塊骨架的照片。

2011年3月，Psihoyos提起訴訟，控告Wiley侵犯了其8張照片的版權(quán)。

此后，Wiley請求簡易判決，其理由是Psihoyos的案件是受被版權(quán)法三年訴訟時效法律禁止的。Wiley還試圖禁止攝影師要求對其照片的索賠，因為該他在提起訴訟前還沒有向版權(quán)局注冊這些照片。

美地方法院認(rèn)為，版權(quán)侵權(quán)賠償基于實際或建設(shè)性的侵權(quán)證據(jù)的發(fā)現(xiàn)。該法院還指出Psihoyos直到2010年才發(fā)現(xiàn)侵權(quán)，還在三年的訴訟期內(nèi)。

但美國第二巡回法院還主張，該攝影師向美版權(quán)局提交的遲來的注冊申請未能符合版權(quán)法的注冊要求，并指出美聯(lián)邦上訴法院對未決申請能否像注冊版權(quán)一樣滿足侵權(quán)訴訟的先決條件存有分歧。

Second Circuit Rules that Copyright Claim Not Barred by Statute of Limitations

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with a district court that a National Geographic photographer’s copyright infringement claims against a textbook publisher were not barred by the statute of limitations.

Louis Psihoyos, a professional photographer, created eight photos that John Wiley & Sons published in textbooks from 2005 to 2009.

In November of 2010 Wiley tried to enter into a retroactive license agreement with Psihoyos after it discovered that it had published in several textbooks without a license his photos of a Stanford University professor holding a narcoleptic dog.

After learning about Wiley’s use of his narcoleptic dog photos, Psihoyos asked Wiley to disclose any other unauthorized use of his photos.

Wiley then examined its records and discovered that it had also published without the photographer’s permission one photo of a Triceratops skeleton and one of an Oviraptor skeleton In March of 2011 Psihoyos filed a complaint alleging that Wiley had infringed his copyright in eight photographs.

After discovery, Wiley moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Psihoyos’s case was barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations. Wiley also sought to bar the photographer’s claims for photos he had failed to register with the Copyright Office before bringing suit.

The district court held that copyright infringement claims accrue upon actual or constructive discovery of infringement and that Psihoyos did not discover the infringement until 2010, within three years of filing suit.

The Second Circuit also found that the photographer’s belated submission of an application for registration to the Copyright Office failed to satisfy the Copyright Act’s registration requirement, noting that the Federal Courts of Appeals are divided on whether a pending application satisfies the requirement of a copyright registration as a precondition for bringing an infringement action.

來源：美智財-知識產(chǎn)權(quán)專家整理：iprdaily 網(wǎng)站：http://globalwellnesspartner.com/

“IPRdaily”是全球視野的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)科技媒體，由一群長期從事知識產(chǎn)權(quán)服務(wù)的信徒建立，我們中有資深媒體人，有投資者，有觀察者，有代理人，有律師、有IPR風(fēng)險控制專家，還有創(chuàng)業(yè)者。我們將客觀敏銳地記錄、述評、傳播、分享知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行業(yè)的每一天。

微信訂閱號: “IPRdaily” IPRdaily｜讀懂知識產(chǎn)權(quán)&未來 ------------------------------------------ 版權(quán)聲明：作品版權(quán)歸作者所有，如果無意之中侵犯了您的版權(quán)，請來信告知，本站將在3個工作日內(nèi)刪除