Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Foundation  v.  Maaherra,  114  F. 3d  955,  963  (CA9  1997).  
Many of those cases involved mistakes of law.  See, e.g., id., 
at 961, 963; Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 329 F. 3d 
586, 591 (CA7 2003); Advisers, Inc. v. Wiesen-Hart, Inc., 238 
F. 2d 706, 707–708 (CA6 1956) (per curiam).  We can find 
no indication that Congress intended to alter this well-es-
tablished rule when it enacted §411(b).  See Davis v. Mich-
igan  Dept.  of  Treasury,  489  U. S.  803,  813  (1989)  (“When 
Congress  codifies  a  judicially  defined  concept,  it  is  pre-
sumed,  absent  an  express statement  to the  contrary, that 
Congress  intended  to  adopt  the  interpretation  placed  on 
that  concept  by  the  courts”);  see  also  Kirtsaeng  v.  John 
Wiley  &  Sons,  Inc.,  568  U. S.  519,  538  (2013)  (similar).
  Further, those who consider legislative history will find 
that history persuasive here.  It indicates that Congress en-
acted  §411(b)  to  make  it  easier,  not  more  difficult,  for 
nonlawyers  to  obtain  valid  copyright  registrations.    The 
House Report states that its purpose was to “improve intel-
lectual  property  enforcement  in  the  United  States  and 
abroad.”  H. R. Rep. No. 110–617, p. 20 (2008).  It did so in 
part by “eliminating loopholes that might prevent enforce-
ment of otherwise validly registered copyrights.”  Ibid.  The 
Report specifically notes that some defendants in copyright 
infringement  cases  had  “argued . . .  that  a mistake  in  the 
registration documents, such as checking the wrong box on 
the  registration  form,  renders  a  registration  invalid  and 
thus forecloses the availability of statutory damages.”  Id., 
at 24.  Congress intended to deny infringers the ability to 
“exploi[t] this potential loophole.”  Ibid.  Of course, an ap-
plicant for a copyright registration—especially one who is 
not a lawyer—might check the wrong box on the registra-
tion documents as a result of a legal, as well as a factual, 
error.  Given this history, it would make no sense if §411(b) 
left copyright registrations exposed to invalidation based on 
applicants’  good-faith  misunderstandings  of  the  details  of 
copyright law.