Opinion ID: 6499526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing to Bring Copyright Claims

Text: The Copyright Act provides a cause of action to “[t]he legal or beneficial owner” of a copyright to vindicate infringements. 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). To prevail on a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright; factual copying; and substantial similarity. Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc., 783 F.3d 527, 544 (5th Cir. 2015). Thus, the question regarding standing is simple—if Appellant owned the copyrights at the time of the alleged infringements or if Appellant was effectively assigned the rights to vindicate prior infringements, it has standing to proceed. The issue of plaintiff’s standing to sue was not raised by Pampa Bay until closing argument in the trial. Responding to the last-minute argument, the district court had no factual record on standing but interpreted the assignment from Beatriz Ball Collection as legally insufficient to confer standing. We are inclined to disagree with the court’s conclusion. In any 3 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). 6 Case: 21-30029 Document: 00516391348 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-30029 event, there is a more straightforward path to finding that Appellant indeed had standing through the Copyright Act’s safe harbor for innocent errors on copyright registrations. On appeal, Beatriz Ball contends, without dispute, that “Beatriz Ball, LLC” and “Beatriz Ball Collection” are the same entity, and the assignment was executed just before suit was filed out of an abundance of caution in the (vain) hope of eliminating any confusion. We hold, however, that the original filing was sufficient. The Copyright Act provides that a registration with “inaccurate information” can support an infringement action if the misstatements in the application were either (1) unknowing or (2) immaterial. 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1); 4 see One Treasure, Ltd., Inc. v. Richardson, 202 F.App’x 658, 660 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (per curiam); 2 MELVILLE NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 7:20 (2021). The mistakes on Beatriz Ball’s copyright registrations are quintessential examples of the unknowing errors § 411(b)(1) is meant to excuse. Nonlawyer employees mistakenly listed the company’s trade name—instead of its proper corporate designation, Beatriz Ball, LLC—on the copyright applications. Everything in the record suggests that this was an innocent, inadvertent error made by workers unfamiliar with the legalese and 4 This provision states: (b)(1) A certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of this section and section 412, regardless of whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information, unless— (A) the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (B) the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration. 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1). 7 Case: 21-30029 Document: 00516391348 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-30029 misled by inconsistent instructions from the Copyright Office. The Supreme Court explained earlier this year that “[l]ack of knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration.” Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P., 142 S. Ct. 941, 945 (2022). Because these employees had no idea the applications were inaccurate, the registrations can support Beatriz Ball’s infringement action. See id. Courts routinely use § 411(b)(1) to overlook similar good faith errors and allow suits to proceed under the proper claimant’s name. See Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2010) (sole shareholder named instead of corporation); Thomas Wilson & Co. v. Irving J. Dorfman Co., Inc., 433 F.2d 409, 412 (2d Cir. 1970) (president of corporation named instead of corporation); Morelli v. Tiffany & Co., 186 F. Supp. 2d 563, 565 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (owner named instead of corporation); see also One Treasure, 202 F.App’x at 660 (“Courts have repeatedly excused a wide range of errors, . . . including misidentification of copyright claimant[.]”); Nimmer, supra, at § 7:20 (“[C]ases have forgiven even . . . erroneous statements as to the identity of the author, or of the copyright claimant.”). 5 5 Deciding standing under § 411(b)(1) here does not require referring the issue to the Register of Copyrights pursuant to § 411(b)(2), which requires the Register to determine materiality only if there is an allegation that the misstatement was both material and knowing. 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2) (“[A]ny case in which inaccurate information described under paragraph (1) [knowing and material misstatement] is alleged.”); see Nimmer, supra, § 7:20 (explaining that § 411(b)(2) applies when “parties to a case allege deliberate misstatement in the registration certificate”). This is how courts have consistently interpreted the requirement. Compare Jules Jordan Video, 617 F.3d at 1156 (no allegation the misstatements were knowing and no referral to the Copyright Office); Thomas Wilson & Co., 433 F.2d at 412 (same); Morelli, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 565–66 (same), with DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand, 734 F.3d 616, 623–24 (7th Cir. 2013) (allegation of knowing and material misstatement referred to the Register). The statute does not require the Register to make materiality determinations even if the misstatements were, as here, made unknowingly. And because unknowing misstatements do not defeat 8 Case: 21-30029 Document: 00516391348 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-30029 The identity error in this case is the precise situation § 411(b)(1) addresses. Beatriz Ball, LLC had standing 6 to bring this suit as the actual copyright holder pursuant to that provision. Accordingly, we need not discuss whether the assignment to Beatriz Ball, LLC should have been interpreted under state or federal law or whether it authorized the assignee to pursue infringement claims predating the assignment. See Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 410 F.2d 698, 699–700 (5th Cir. 1969); Di Angelo Publications, Inc. v. Kelley, 9 F.4th 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2021); Hacienda Recs., L.P. v. Ramos, 718 F.App’x 223, 233 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished).