美国第二巡回法院裁决，版权赔偿不受诉讼时效法律的束缚

产业

IPRdaily11年前

【小D导读】 2005年至2009年，John Wiley & Sons将专业摄影师Louis Psihoyos拍摄的8张照片用到了其出版的教科书中。

美国第二巡回上诉法院同意地方法院的裁决，即诉讼时效法律不会终止《国家地理杂志》摄影师要求教科书出版商支付版权侵权的索赔。

2010年11月，在Wiley发现该出版商在未经其允许的情况下，在其出版的几本教科书中使用了他拍摄的一张斯坦福大学教授手里抱着猝睡症吉娃娃的照片后，他试图与Psihoyos达成一项有追溯力的授权协议。

在得知Wiley使用了他的一张猝睡症吉娃娃的照片后，Psihoyos要求Wiley公开其他未得到其授权的照片。

后来，Wiley查了其记录，发现自己还出版了一张未经摄影师允许的三角龙骨架和偷蛋龙的其中一块骨架的照片。

2011年3月，Psihoyos提起诉讼，控告Wiley侵犯了其8张照片的版权。

此后，Wiley请求简易判决，其理由是Psihoyos的案件是受被版权法三年诉讼时效法律禁止的。Wiley还试图禁止摄影师要求对其照片的索赔，因为该他在提起诉讼前还没有向版权局注册这些照片。

美地方法院认为，版权侵权赔偿基于实际或建设性的侵权证据的发现。该法院还指出Psihoyos直到2010年才发现侵权，还在三年的诉讼期内。

但美国第二巡回法院还主张，该摄影师向美版权局提交的迟来的注册申请未能符合版权法的注册要求，并指出美联邦上诉法院对未决申请能否像注册版权一样满足侵权诉讼的先决条件存有分歧。

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.

来源：美智财-知识产权专家整理：iprdaily 网站：http://www.iprdaily.cn/

“IPRdaily”是全球视野的知识产权科技媒体，由一群长期从事知识产权服务的信徒建立，我们中有资深媒体人，有投资者，有观察者，有代理人，有律师、有IPR风险控制专家，还有创业者。我们将客观敏锐地记录、述评、传播、分享知识产权行业的每一天。