Opinion ID: 734276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: court trial on statutory damages

Text: 35 Section 504(c)(1) of the Act allows a copyright holder to elect statutory damages in lieu of actual damages. If statutory damages have been elected, and a defendant is found to have infringed, damages are to be awarded in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Additionally, if the court finds ... that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000, and if the court finds that the infringement was committed innocently the court [in] its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. Id. § 504(c)(2). Columbia elected statutory damages. Over Feltner's objection, the district court held a bench trial on damages, found Feltner's infringement to be willful, and fixed the statutory damages at $20,000 per violation. 36 Feltner argues that the district court's denial of his request for a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages was erroneous, both as a matter of statutory interpretation and because it deprived him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. We reject Feltner's argument. 37 In Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir.1977), we interpreted the analogous statutory damages provision of the 1909 Copyright Act and held that the amount of statutory damages is properly addressed to the court, not the jury. Id. at 1177. In so holding, the court relied on the statute's language, which provided for the award of such damages as to the court shall appear to be just. Id. at 1177 n. 5 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101(b)) (emphasis added). The Krofft court reasoned: The jury plays no role in this determination, because 'the court 's conception of what is just in the particular case, considering the nature of the copyright, the circumstances of the infringement, and the like, is made the measure of the damages to be paid....'  Id. at 1177 (quoting L.A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100, 106, 39 S.Ct. 194, 196, 63 L.Ed. 499 (1919)) (emphasis in original). 38 Feltner argues that Krofft is distinguishable because the 1909 Act, interpreted by Krofft, gave the court the option of awarding in lieu (statutory) damages while the 1976 Act gives the option to elect statutory damages to the plaintiff. However, Krofft 's rationale is equally applicable to § 504 of the 1976 Act. Section 504(c)(1) of the 1976 Act, like § 101(b) of the 1909 Act, provides for the award of such damages (within fixed limits) as the court considers just. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). If Congress intended to overrule Krofft by having the jury determine the proper award of statutory damages, it would have altered this language. 39 As for Feltner's contention that the district court's ruling deprived him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, we agree with those cases holding that the Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages because an award of such damages is equitable in nature. See Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 852-53 (11th Cir.1990); Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir.1983); Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Frith, 645 F.2d 6, 7 (5th Cir.1981); Raydiola Music v. Revelation Rob, Inc., 729 F.Supp. 369 (D.Del.1990); cf. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F.2d 1010, 1014-16 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 861, 112 S.Ct. 181, 116 L.Ed.2d 143 (1991) (holding that the amount of statutory damages is decided by the court but the issue of willfulness should be tried to the jury). But see Cass County Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that Seventh Amendment provides right to have jury assess statutory damages); Gnossos Music v. Mitken, Inc., 653 F.2d 117, 119-21 (4th Cir.1981) (same); Educational Testing Services v. Katzman, 670 F.Supp. 1237 (D.N.J.1987) (same). See generally 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04[C] (1995) (listing cases and describing those cases allocating decision to judge as the better view). 40 The district court properly denied Feltner's request for a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages.