The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Florida music producer in his legal battle with Warner Music over rapper Flo Rida's song, allowing him to seek monetary damages dating back to the song's release in 2008. It was decided that
In a lawsuit the music company called “vital,” the judge ruled that Sherman, the Miami producer who sued Warner for using an unauthorized sample on Flo Rida's “In the Air.” The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Neely. 1984 song “Jam the Box”.
The High Court case addressed a major unresolved question: Are copyright damages limited to the past three years before the lawsuit was filed? Or could owners like Neely pursue damages going back decades, potentially adding millions more to the total?
In Thursday's ruling, the justices said it was the latter, siding with a lower appellate court that rejected the three-year cap. “There is no time limit on how much money can be recovered,” Justice Elena Kagan said in her brief opinion. “Accordingly, copyright owners who timely file claims of infringement are entitled to recover damages regardless of when the infringement occurred.”
Neely's case dealt with a thorny issue in copyright law, but the number of copyright lawsuits targeting artists such as Led Zeppelin, U2 and Meatloaf has increased significantly over the past decade. The lawsuit also attracted attention from the music industry. Thursday's ruling creates the potential for much larger awards in such cases and could encourage more accusers to challenge the lawsuits.
But importantly, the ruling sidestepped a question that could have had even greater consequences. In his own opinion, Kagan addressed the even more important question of whether someone like Neely could sue years after his songs were first infringed. clarified that he had not made a decision.
The issue has divided lower courts on dueling sides with two different approaches, and will likely need to be resolved in future litigation. In Thursday's decision, Kagan simply placed limits on how far back accusers can seek to recover money, assuming such years-delayed lawsuits are actually filed. I just said it shouldn't be done.
“We cannot resolve today which of these two rules should govern the timeliness of copyright infringement claims,” the justices wrote, noting the disagreement over the issue. “However, we decline to apply judicially devised damages limits to convert one into the other.”
Neither party immediately responded to requests for comment on the decision.
Neely sued Atlantic Records, Warner Chappell, and Artist Publishing Group in Florida federal court in 2018, claiming his “Jam the Box” was sampled on Flo Rida's “In the Air.” The answer was no, arguing that no valid license had actually been granted. Since its release in July 2008, it has reached number 9 on the Hot 100.
In 2021, the judge ruled that Neely could not win money from before 2015, citing a three-year cap on damages. He cited a 2014 Supreme Court ruling on the movie “Raging Bull,” which said copyright whistleblowers “can get relief as far back as three years,” imposing that restriction. It seemed like that.
But earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned that decision, saying that Flo Rida's damages could be retroactive to the release of her music. The appeals court adopted the so-called “discovery rule” approach used by some other courts, citing Neely's claim that he learned of the illegal samples in 2016.
Warner quickly appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the “discovery” approach would unfairly expand the “economic exposure” of copyright defendants and lead to frivolous litigation aimed at “extracting a settlement.” I warned you that this is a possibility.
“Stripped of predictable statutes of limitations and faced with costly, time-consuming, and difficult litigation defending long-standing uses of copyrighted works, defendants often pursue claims even in the absence of wrongdoing. “This leaves us with no choice but to resolve the issue early,” or potentially not sign a valuable contract in the first place, Warner wrote.
Prior to Thursday's ruling, labels and publishers had been closely monitoring Warner's lawsuit. The Recording Industry Association of America and the Music Publishers Association of America said in briefs filed last year that the case is “of critical importance to the music industry.”
“Because copyright is the music industry's most important asset, music labels and music publishers routinely both enforce and defend copyright lawsuits,” RIAA and NMPA attorneys wrote. “Without clear national rules setting temporary limits on recoverable harm, Amici and its members face serious uncertainty.”
Read the full Supreme Court decision here.