In a significant ruling, the US Supreme Court has sided with a music producer named Sherman Nealy in a legal battle against Warner Music over a song by rapper Flo Rida. Nealy alleged that Warner Music infringed upon his copyright by using elements of a song called “Jam the Box”, produced by Tony Butler (also known as Pretty Tony), without proper licensing. Nealy had asserted that his label Music Specialist owned the rights to this electronic dance song, which was used by Flo Rida (real name: Tramar Dillard) in his 2008 hit “In the Ayer”.
Nealy had originally filed a lawsuit against Warner Chappell Music, Inc., and Artist Publishing Group in 2018, seeking damages for alleged copyright infringement dating back to 2008. However, a federal judge ruled that Nealy could only recover damages for incidents that occurred within the previous three years due to the applicable statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims.
The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned this decision, stating that there was no restriction on damages in a timely action. On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit’s decision, affirming that copyright owners are entitled to receive damages for any legitimate claims made within the stipulated period.
In her opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan highlighted Section 503(b)(1) of the 1976 Copyright Act, which states that copyright holders can seek damages dating back to two years prior to the filing of their claim or three months prior to its discovery, whichever came first.
During oral arguments in February, several justices expressed reservations about deciding the matter before considering a related case concerning the “discovery rule” in a copyright dispute involving Hearst Newspapers and photographer Antonio Martinelli. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch both expressed concerns that the Supreme Court may eventually eliminate this rule in a future decision. As a result, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito in a dissenting opinion today, stating that the Court’s decision might become obsolete if the discovery rule were to be rejected in future proceedings.
Leave a Reply