Opinion ID: 774368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Columbia's Appeal from District Court's Denial of Its Motion for Attorneys' Fees

Text: 46 In a separate appeal, Columbia argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for attorneys' fees. Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides for an award [of ] reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. 17 U.S.C. §§ 505 (2001). In deciding whether to award fees, the district court should consider the degree of success obtained; frivolousness; motivation; objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal arguments in the case); and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence. Jackson v. Axton , 25 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 1994). A district court's decision whether to award attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, 103 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 1996). 47 We find that the district court applied the proper legal test and did not abuse its discretion in denying Columbia's motion. Jackson, 25 F.3d at 890. The district court's decision denying Columbia's motion for attorneys' fees is therefore affirmed. 48