Opinion ID: 447624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the copyright infringement award

Text: 6 F.E.L. claims that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to award statutory damages in lieu of the jury's award for actual damages. F.E.L. also asserts that the trial judge improperly considered the punitive damages awarded for its separate tortious interference claim in determining that the copyright infringement award was just, and that this constituted reversible error. Conversely, the Catholic Bishop contends that statutory damages cannot be awarded in this case because F.E.L.'s actual damages were ascertainable. In support of this contention, the Catholic Bishop argues that the statutory damages provision of Section 101(b) is not to be used as a penalty, see Universal Pictures v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d 354, 378 (9th Cir.1947); Sammons v. Colonial Press, Inc., 126 F.2d 341, 350 (1st Cir.1942); Davilla v. Brunswick-Balke Collender Co., 94 F.2d 567, 568 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 572, 58 S.Ct. 1040, 82 L.Ed. 1536 (1938), and that statutory damages are not available when actual damages can be proved. See Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson, 140 F.2d 465, 466 (2d Cir.1944); Doehrer v. Caldwell, 207 U.S.P.Q. 391, 393 (N.D.Ill.1980); 4 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, Appendix 16 at 16-8. 7 Under the Copyright Act of 1909, the copyright holder is entitled to an award of both the actual damages suffered due to the infringement and the amount of the infringer's profits. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101(b) (1976) (repealed 1976); F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 230, 73 S.Ct. 222, 224, 97 L.Ed. 276 (1952). Section 101(b) also provides that the trial judge may, in lieu of actual damages and profits, [allow] such damages as to the court shall appear to be just within monetary limits established by the statute. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted Section 101(b) as giving the trial judge broad discretion in determining whether it is more just to allow recovery for actual damages and profits, based on the evidence, or to award statutory damages within the limits provided by the statute. Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 231-32, 73 S.Ct. at 224-25; L.A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100, 106, 39 S.Ct. 194, 195, 63 L.Ed. 499 (1919). In making this determination, the trial judge may consider the difficulty or impossibility of proving actual damages, Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 233, 73 S.Ct. at 225; Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 U.S. 207, 209, 55 S.Ct. 365, 366, 79 L.Ed. 862 (1935), the circumstances of the infringement, Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 232, 73 S.Ct. at 225 (quoting L.A. Westermann, 249 U.S. at 106, 39 S.Ct. at 195), and the efficacy of the damages as a deterrent to future copyright infringement. Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 233, 73 S.Ct. at 225. 8 Woolworth further states that the statute not only compels restitution of profit and reparation for injury but also is designed to discourage wrongful conduct. The discretion of the trial court is wide enough to permit a resort to statutory damages for such purposes. Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 233, 73 S.Ct. at 225. Accordingly, the trial judge has discretion to award statutory damages in lieu of or in addition to actual damages for the purpose of deterring future infringement. See Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust v. Crown Publishers, 592 F.2d 651, 657 (2d Cir.1978) (statutory damages and actual damages not mutually exclusive remedies); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Jobela Fabrics, Inc., 329 F.2d 194, 196 (2d Cir.1964) (Section 101(b) allows cummulative, not just alternative, recovery for statutory damages and actual damages). 9 We find that in this case the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to award F.E.L. statutory damages in addition to or in lieu of the actual damages awarded. The evidence showed that unauthorized copying occurred in 238 parishes during the three year period for which F.E.L. was allowed to sue under the statute. The trial judge, at F.E.L.'s request, used F.E.L.'s licensing scheme to calculate the actual damage to F.E.L.'s business caused by the illegal copying. The jury awarded F.E.L. the exact amount it requested and the trial judge, in his order denying F.E.L.'s post-trial motion, stated that F.E.L.'s business was substantially made whole by the award. R. 329 (Order of June 8, 1984). Thus, this was clearly not a case where the court needed to resort to statutory damages because proof of actual damages was difficult or impossible. See, e.g., Lottie Joplin, 592 F.2d at 657; Peter Pan, 329 F.2d at 197. Nor were profits to the Catholic Bishop from the unauthorized copying at issue because F.E.L.'s music was used for ecclesiastical, not commercial, purposes. 10 Moreover, the record contains testimony concerning the circumstances of the infringement, including testimony as to the structure of the Chicago Archdiocese and its business relationship with F.E.L., the way in which the infringement occurred, and the types of people who actually engaged in the infringement. It is apparent that the trial judge considered these circumstances in determining that it was just to allow only actual damages. See R. 329 (Order of June 8, 1984, p. 3). We therefore find that the trial judge acted within his discretion in determining that the jury's award was just and that additional, statutory damages were not necessary to deter future copyright infringement. Cf. Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 233, 73 S.Ct. at 225. 11 Incongruously, F.E.L.'s dissatisfaction with the amount of the award seems to be based on the trial judge's use of the licensing scheme which F.E.L. proposed as the method to calculate its actual damages. F.E.L. now claims that this method of calculation did not adequately compensate F.E.L. for its losses. F.E.L. argues that it should be granted statutory damages because it would have elected statutory rather than actual damages if it could have sued under the current copyright statute, which allows such election. Further, F.E.L. complains that it was unable to sue for infringement beyond the three year period allowed by the Copyright Act of 1909, and that this was unfair because infringement occurred over a much longer period of time. We fail to see how the trial judge abused his discretion by calculating F.E.L.'s damages according to the method F.E.L. suggested. Moreover, we are concerned only with what F.E.L. did do at trial, not with what it would have liked to have done but was not permitted to do by the statute, and we therefore find no merit to F.E.L.'s argument that the damages awarded were inadequate. 12 While complaining that its award was unfairly limited by the Copyright Act's three year statute of limitations, F.E.L. argues that the trial judge improperly considered infringement outside of the three year period for which the statute allows a remedy in denying F.E.L.'s motion for statutory damages. Specifically, F.E.L. argues that the trial judge denied its motion based in part on the fact that F.E.L. did not file suit against the Catholic Bishop for several years after gaining knowledge of the copyright infringement, and that this was an unreasonable delay in bringing suit. We find that the trial judge properly based his decision to deny statutory damages on the evidence and exercised his discretion within the parameters established by Woolworth. Moreover, F.E.L.'s delay in filing suit certainly could be characterized as one of the circumstances of the infringement referred to in Woolworth, 344 U.S. at 232, 73 S.Ct. at 225, and we find no authority which states that this is an improper factor to consider. 13 Finally, it does not appear that the trial judge committed reversible error by improperly considering the punitive damages awarded for F.E.L.'s tortious interference claim in determining that the copyright infringement award was just. F.E.L.'s argument that these damages were improperly considered is based on one sentence in the post-trial order denying its motion for statutory damages. The trial record, however, indicates that the determination was properly based on the factors discussed above, and the post-trial order itself states that [F.E.L.] received the award of damages in the amount it claimed and as supported by the evidence. As we recall the evidence, [F.E.L.'s] business will be substantially made whole by the award of $190,400. R. 329 (Order of June 8, 1984, p. 3). We therefore find no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the trial judge's refusal to award F.E.L. statutory damages, and we affirm the jury's award of $190,400 for F.E.L.'s copyright infringement claim.