Copyrights Archives

Copyrights

A costly discovery misstep: Untimely damages evidence excluded

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | Jun 18, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of damages evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and the resulting grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on all claims. Deque Sys. Inc. v. BrowserStack, Inc., Case No. 25-1534 (4th Cir. June 5, 2026) (Agee, Traxler, Floyd, JJ.)

Deque Systems develops software that helps businesses make websites accessible to users who have visual and hearing impairments. Deque sued competitor BrowserStack for copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, alleging that BrowserStack reverse-engineered Deque’s software to develop a competing product and falsely advertised it as “5x faster” than Deque’s flagship offering.

Under the district court’s scheduling order, initial disclosures were due on June 7, 2024; expert disclosures were due on August 9, 2024; and fact discovery closed on October 11, 2024. Although Deque timely served its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, it failed to provide a computation of damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). When BrowserStack later served an interrogatory seeking the categories and calculations of Deque’s claimed damages, Deque again declined to provide a damages computation, stating only that it intended to seek all available damages and that its calculations remained incomplete.

Deque also failed to serve a damages expert report by the August 2024 expert disclosure deadline. After retaining new counsel, Deque disclosed a $30 million damages calculation on October 8, 2024, just three days before the close of discovery. BrowserStack moved to exclude the damages evidence and sought summary judgment.

The district court excluded Deque’s damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1), finding that Deque failed to comply with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements. Because Deque could no longer prove damages and failed to establish entitlement to injunctive relief, the district court granted summary judgment in BrowserStack’s favor on all claims. Deque appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure requirements by prohibiting a party from using information that was not properly disclosed during discovery. The Court found that Deque had “indisputably failed to comply” with Rule 26(a)’s damages disclosure requirements by failing to provide a damages computation in its initial disclosures, expert disclosures, or interrogatory responses. The Court rejected Deque’s argument that its disclosure of damages in a rebuttal expert report three days before the close of discovery constituted a timely disclosure.

Turning to the propriety of the sanction, the Fourth Circuit applied the five-factor test set forth in its 2003 Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. decision:

Surprise to the opposing party
Ability to cure the surprise
Disruption of trial
Importance of the evidence
Explanation for the nondisclosure

The Fourth Circuit concluded that all five factors favored exclusion. BrowserStack was plainly surprised by Deque’s $30 million damages claim, which was disclosed only days before discovery closed. Curing that surprise would have required reopening discovery and significantly delaying the proceedings. Although the damages evidence was important, Deque failed to offer any meaningful justification for its repeated failure [...]

Continue Reading

Funked out: Sixth Circuit finds copyright ownership claim accrues upon plain and express repudiation

by Tyler Jackson | Jun 11, 2026 | Copyrights

Addressing when a copyright ownership claim accrues under the Copyright Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment grant, finding that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether a musician’s estate timely asserted joint ownership rights in certain sound recordings. The Court explained that an ownership claim accrues only when one party plainly and expressly repudiates another party’s ownership. Est. of Worrell v. Thang, Inc., Case No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026) (Boggs, Batchelder, Moore, JJ.)

George Bernard (Bernie) Worrell, Jr. and George Clinton were members of Parliament-Funkadelic (P-Funk), the influential funk collective that began in the 1950s. Worrell collaborated with Clinton and P-Funk for approximately a decade before leaving the group in the 1980s. During that period, Worrell and Clinton allegedly operated under several informal and disputed agreements, including a purported 1976 agreement under which Worrell allegedly assigned ownership of certain sound recordings to Thang, Inc. (a company owned by Clinton) in exchange for royalty payments. The parties disputed whether the agreement was ever validly executed, and Worrell allegedly was not consistently paid under it.

After Worrell died in 2016, his estate sued Thang in New York state court in 2019 for breach of contract. Thang prevailed, arguing that Worrell did not possess a countersigned copy of the 1976 agreement. In that litigation, Clinton submitted sworn testimony stating that Thang never signed the agreement and that Clinton himself did not sign either the original or a copy.

Two years later, the estate sued Thang in federal district court, seeking a declaration that Worrell jointly owned the sound recordings he created with P-Funk and requesting an accounting of royalties. The district court granted summary judgment to Clinton and Thang, finding that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations barred the estate’s claims. The estate appealed.

The Sixth Circuit explained that a copyright ownership claim accrues only once and must be brought within three years of accrual. Following its own precedent and the approach of other circuits, the Court reiterated that an ownership claim accrues when there has been a “plain and express repudiation” of ownership by one party against another. The Court emphasized that the repudiation inquiry is fact-intensive and subject to equitable considerations.

Applying that standard, the Sixth Circuit found genuine disputes of material fact as to when, if ever, Clinton and Thang plainly and expressly repudiated Worrell’s alleged co-ownership. The Court reasoned that because the New York court had determined that Thang never executed the 1976 agreement, which was the agreement that purportedly exchanged Worrell’s ownership rights for royalty payments, a fact finder could conclude that Worrell never gave up his joint ownership rights in the recordings. The Sixth Circuit also found that the parties’ decades-long conduct in relation to the agreement complicated the limitations analysis and precluded summary judgment.

The Sixth Circuit also considered whether the estate had presented sufficient evidence of joint authorship. Under the Copyright Act, a joint work is one prepared by two or more authors [...]

Continue Reading

One frame is enough: Second Circuit narrows de minimis use, limits fair use at pleading stage

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment on the pleadings, clarifying that the de minimis doctrine does not apply where the copyrighted work is identifiable in the secondary use – even if only a single frame is copied – and that fair use is unlikely to be resolved at the pleading stage when an entire copyrighted work is republished for commercial purposes. Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc., Case No. 25-291-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.)

Delray Richardson operates the YouTube channel “Straight Game TV.” In May 2015, he posted a 42 second video showing Michael Jordan intervening in a confrontation. The video gained widespread attention in July 2023 after the hip hop blog DailyLoud reposted it in full on X. Townsquare Media subsequently published an article reporting on the incident and embedded DailyLoud’s X post containing the entire video.

In a separate incident, Richardson recorded an interview with rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel in March 2023. Richardson posted a three-minute clip of the interview, in which Melle Mel made controversial statements about Eminem, to YouTube. The following day, Townsquare published an article discussing the interview and embedded the YouTube clip. The article’s header image included a screenshot taken from the Melle Mel video, depicting Melle Mel next to an image of Eminem. Two days later, Townsquare published a follow up article about rapper 50 Cent’s response and included a second screenshot from the same video, this time placed next to an image of 50 Cent.

Richardson sued Townsquare for copyright infringement based on Townsquare’s use of the Jordan video, the Melle Mel video, and the two screenshots. Townsquare moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that:

Its use of the Jordan video constituted fair use.
Its embedding of the Melle Mel video was authorized under YouTube’s terms of service.
The screenshots were de minimis.

The district court accepted each argument and dismissed the case in full. Richardson appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s fair use ruling as to the Jordan video. Applying the four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of the first, third, and fourth factors.

As to the first factor (the purpose and character of the use), the Second Circuit concluded that it was “debatable” whether Townsquare’s article added meaningful commentary, and even if it did, any transformative character was substantially offset by the use’s commercial nature.

On the third factor (the amount and substantiality of the portion used), the Second Circuit emphasized that Townsquare republished the entire video, rather than linking to or embedding it in a manner consistent with the original platform. That full reproduction weighed heavily against fair use at the pleading stage.

With respect to the fourth factor (the effect on the potential market), the Second Circuit concluded that Townsquare failed to carry its burden of showing that its use did not usurp a market for the [...]

Continue Reading

Transformative documentary use, work made for hire doctrine defeat copyright claims

by Lisette Donewald | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

Elaborating on the application of the fair use doctrine in the documentary context, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment after determining that seven of the eight works at issue were works made for hire and that the defendant’s use of the eighth work constituted fair use under all four statutory factors. Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-6086 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026) (Holmes, Hartz, Carson, JJ.)

The dispute arose from Netflix’s use of video footage in its documentary series Tiger King. The footage was filmed by Timothy Sepi, who later claimed copyright ownership through his company, Whyte Monkee Productions. Whyte alleged that Netflix infringed its copyrights by including eight videos in the series.

Netflix argued that the first seven videos were made for hire because Sepi created them while he was employed by the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park. The district court agreed, crediting evidence that filming was part of Sepi’s job responsibilities and noting significant inconsistencies between Sepi’s 2016 and 2021 deposition testimony regarding his employment and role in creating the footage.

The eighth video, which was the only one not created within the scope of Sepi’s employment, was a 24-minute recording of a funeral. Netflix used approximately 66 seconds of the funeral video in Tiger King. The district court agreed with Netflix that this was fair use. Whyte appealed.

Whyte advanced new arguments on appeal challenging the work made for hire status of the first seven videos. The new arguments differed meaningfully from those presented to the district court. The Tenth Circuit found that the new arguments were waived because Whyte failed to raise the theories below or argue for plain error on appeal. Thus, the Court declined to consider them and affirmed summary judgment as to the first seven videos.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the eighth video that all four fair use factors favored Netflix.

Factor one: Transformative use and justification

The Tenth Circuit’s analysis of the first factor (the purpose and character of the use) emphasized that the central question is whether the secondary use has a distinct purpose or character, not merely whether it adds new meaning. The Court explained that the original funeral video functioned as a memorial recording while Tiger King repurposed the footage to illustrate and comment on Joe Exotic’s personality, specifically his performative behavior and megalomania. That difference in purpose rendered the use transformative.

The Court clarified the role of “justification” and “targeting” in transformative use analysis. Where a secondary use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character, no independent justification, such as parody or direct commentary on the original work, is required. Targeting the original work is necessary only where the secondary use does not otherwise establish meaningful transformativeness. This analysis tempers overly rigid interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Warhol v. Lynn decision and preserves flexibility for documentary and contextual uses.

The Court further determined that although Tiger King was a commercial [...]

Continue Reading

It’s not a trap: A shared copyright license can still be exclusive

by Keval Amin | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

Addressing statutory standing under the Copyright Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that a license is not rendered nonexclusive merely because the copyright owner retained certain rights or previously granted nonexclusive licenses. Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC, Case No. 24-12482 (11th Cir. May 5, 2026) (Jordan, Newsom, Corrigan, JJ.)

In 2014, a photographer entered into an artist agreement granting Great Bowery the exclusive right to license and market certain photographs. The photographer retained the ability to provide those works to select third parties for limited projects. Around the same time, Condé Nast invited the photographer to shoot the cast and crew of new Star Wars films and obtained a nonexclusive license to publish the photographs in Vanity Fair magazine.

When photographs from Vanity Fair’s Star Wars feature later appeared on Consequence Sound’s website, Great Bowery sued Consequence Sound for copyright infringement.

During discovery, Great Bowery relied on a 2018 authorization letter from the photographer permitting Great Bowery to enforce her copyrights on her behalf. The district court denied Great Bowery’s untimely motion to amend the complaint to add the photographer as a coplaintiff and granted summary judgment for Consequence Sound. The district court concluded that Great Bowery lacked statutory standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) because it did not hold an exclusive copyright interest. Great Bowery appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of leave to amend, explaining that while third party infringers generally may not challenge technical deficiencies in a copyright transfer, they are permitted to dispute whether a purported transfer actually conveyed any exclusive rights. Because Consequence Sound challenged the substance of Great Bowery’s alleged ownership rather than the adequacy of the writing, Great Bowery bore the burden of establishing standing, and Consequence Sound was entitled to contest it.

On the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court misapplied governing law on exclusive licenses. The district court had concluded that Great Bowery’s license was necessarily nonexclusive because the photographer retained certain usage rights and had previously granted Condé Nast a nonexclusive publication license. According to the Eleventh Circuit, that reasoning misunderstood the divisibility of copyright interests.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that copyright rights enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106, such as reproduction, distribution, and public display, are divisible and independently transferable. As a result, a copyright owner may retain or grant some rights while conveying others exclusively. The presence of retained rights or prior nonexclusive licenses does not categorically defeat exclusivity as long as the licensee possesses at least one exclusive § 106 right sufficient to confer standing under § 501(b).

Applying that principle, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument that Condé Nast’s preexisting nonexclusive license necessarily precluded Great Bowery’s exclusive rights. A nonexclusive license grants only permission to use copyrighted material and does not transfer ownership of any portion of the copyright. Thus, the photographer remained free to transfer exclusive ownership interests to [...]

Continue Reading

Unauthorized streaming of foreign TV programming dishes up copyright infringement liability

by Lauren Hong | Apr 23, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a judgment for an exclusive licensee arising from unauthorized streaming of Arabic language television programming into the United States. The Court’s ruling reinforces both the strength of registered foreign works and the limits on an accused infringer’s ability to challenge ownership and transfer agreements. Dish Network L.L.C. v. Fraifer, Case No. 24-10223 (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2026) (Branch, Abudu, Kidd, JJ.)

DISH had exclusive US rights to distribute and publicly perform certain Arabic language television channels (protected channels). DISH’s rights derived from agreements with MBC FZ LLC, which provides five of the protected channels. Fraifer operated UlaiTV and AhlaiTV, selling set top boxes and using internet infrastructure to capture live broadcasts abroad and retransmit them to customers in the United States via content delivery networks (CDNs) without DISH’s authorization. After a bench trial, the district court found direct copyright infringement. Fraifer appealed.

Fraifer raised three arguments on appeal, all of which the Eleventh Circuit rejected.

First, Fraifer argued that DISH failed to establish valid ownership of the copyrighted works, which were first published in the United Arab Emirates. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The Court concluded that MBC’s US copyright registrations were entitled to the statutory presumption of validity. Because DISH was not the author of the works, the Court examined whether DISH had sufficiently established MBC’s initial ownership. Fraifer argued that the works were “joint works” under UAE law, which would undermine MBC’s sole ownership. But the Court concluded that the television programs were better characterized as “collective works,” since the various creative contributions (writing, music, directing, and other artistic elements) were inseparable in the final audiovisual products.

That classification mattered because under UAE copyright law, the entity directing the creation of a collective work may exercise the relevant rights absent an agreement to the contrary. The Eleventh Circuit also declined to entertain a late-raised challenge to the validity of the registrations, noting that Fraifer had failed to preserve invalidity as an affirmative defense. As a result, MBC was entitled to the statutory presumption of ownership, which DISH could rely on.

Second, Fraifer contended that MBC had not validly transferred exclusive rights to DISH. Even assuming arguable defects in the written conveyances, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Fraifer lacked standing to raise the issue. Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act is designed to resolve disputes between copyright owners and transferees, not to provide accused third party infringers with a defense where neither the owner nor the transferee disputes the transfer. Because MBC and DISH agreed on the status of the rights, Fraifer could not dispute the transfer.

Finally, Fraifer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting direct infringement. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the record supported the finding of direct infringement based on Fraifer’s use of encoders to ingest live broadcasts and push copyrighted programming onto its streaming system for customer viewing. The Eleventh Circuit also upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admission of expert testimony, monitoring [...]

Continue Reading

Provider’s degree of control affects DMCA safe harbor

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Feb 26, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a photographer’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims against a digital media platform for lack of scienter but vacated summary judgment on copyright claims. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to assess whether the accused infringer can claim protection under the DMCA’s service provider safe harbor. McGucken v. Shutterstock Inc., Case No. 23-7652 (2nd. Cir. Feb. 10, 2026) (Lynch, Lee, Perez, JJ.)

Elliott McGucken, a professional photographer, discovered that several hundred of his copyrighted photographs were uploaded to Shutterstock by three user accounts that generated more than $2,000 in licensing revenue. Shutterstock removed the images within four days of receiving takedown notices and terminated the uploading accounts. McGucken nevertheless sued, alleging copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and false copyright management information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The district court granted summary judgment for Shutterstock on all claims. McGucken appealed.

The Second Circuit agreed that McGucken failed to raise a triable issue on Shutterstock’s scienter regarding CMI under the DMCA. First, the Court found that Shutterstock’s practice of placing a watermark on all images on its site did not demonstrate that it knowingly affixed false CMI to McGucken’s works for the purpose of facilitating infringement. Second, the Court found that Shutterstock’s automated removal of CMI from all uploaded images, which is done to avoid malware and strip personally identifiable information, did not show that Shutterstock knew it was removing McGucken’s CMI without authorization or that Shutterstock intended to conceal infringement. On these grounds, the Court affirmed dismissal of the § 1202 claim.

As for the safe harbor provision regarding the copyright infringement claim, the Second Circuit agreed that Shutterstock qualified as a “service provider” with a repeat infringer policy and no interference with standard technical measures. The Court also affirmed that Shutterstock lacked actual or red flag knowledge of the infringement and acted expeditiously once notified.

The Second Circuit found triable issues of fact, however, on two critical safe harbor elements under § 512(c)(1). The first issue was whether the storage was “at the direction of the user.” The Court stated that the factfinder must determine whether Shutterstock’s review of uploaded material involved “substantive and discretionary control” over what appears on the platform, including the level of aesthetic or editorial judgment applied when deciding which images to accept.

The second issue assessed was whether Shutterstock had the “right and ability to control” the alleged infringing activity. The Second Circuit explained that safe harbor is unavailable where the provider exercises “substantial control” over users’ activities, such that decisions about what content is allowed on the site go beyond promoting or demoting material. The Court noted that control may also be inferred if the provider selectively reviews only a subset of uploaded content rather than reviewing all user submissions.

Since these issues remained unresolved, the Second Circuit vacated summary judgment on the copyright claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Practice note: The Second Circuit’s clarification of [...]

Continue Reading

Blackbeard’s revenge: State sovereign immunity ends long running copyright battle

by Sarah Bro | Feb 12, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a 2021 district court ruling and vacated a subsequent 2024 ruling in a decade-long legal battle over copyright infringement claims related to the pirate Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck, concluding the claims were barred under state sovereign immunity. Allen v. Stein, Case No. 24-1954 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2026) (Niemeyer, King, Harris, JJ.)

Background

The dispute stems from Frederick Allen and Nautilus Productions’ allegations that the state of North Carolina and its officials infringed on Allen’s copyrights for photographs and videos of the shipwreck recovery project.

Allen initially filed suit in 2015, alleging that North Carolina officials infringed his copyrights by using his footage without authorization and enacting legislation (dubbed “Blackbeard’s Law”) that designated such materials as public records. The district court largely dismissed Allen’s claims in 2017 on sovereign immunity grounds, but the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on the validity of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) in 2018, concluding that Congress had not validly abrogated state sovereign immunity for copyright claims. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision in Allen v. Cooper (2020), confirming that states are immune from copyright infringement suits under the CRCA.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Allen sought to reopen the case in 2021, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and introducing a new constitutional theory based on United States v. Georgia (2006). The district court allowed Allen to amend his complaint and proceed with his claims under the “Georgia theory,” which argues for case-by-case abrogation of state sovereign immunity for conduct that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2024, the district court denied North Carolina’s sovereign immunity defense for Allen’s copyright infringement claims under this theory, allowing the case to proceed. North Carolina appealed.

Fourth Circuit decision

The Fourth Circuit reversed the 2021 district court decision and vacated the 2024 ruling, finding that the district court abused its discretion in reopening the litigation. The Fourth Circuit explained that Rule 60(b)(6) was the only applicable procedural mechanism for reconsideration because the case had been fully resolved in 2020 following the Supreme Court’s decision and Allen’s voluntary dismissal of the remaining defendant. The Court emphasized that Rule 60(b)(6) requires “extraordinary circumstances,” which were not present in this case. Allen’s failure to raise the Georgia theory earlier in the litigation did not meet this standard.

The Fourth Circuit also criticized the district court’s reliance on Rule 54(b), which applies to interlocutory orders, rather than Rule 60(b), which governs final judgments. The Court noted that the district court’s 2021 decision was based on erroneous legal premises and failed to properly evaluate the timeliness, merits, and prejudice factors required under Rule 60(b).

Pendent appellate jurisdiction

A key aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision was its exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the 2021 district court ruling, even though it was not directly appealable. The Fourth Circuit determined that the 2021 decision was “inextricably intertwined” with the appealable 2024 ruling on sovereign immunity because the [...]

Continue Reading

TRAIN Act targets transparency in generative AI training practices

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Feb 12, 2026 | Copyrights

Representatives Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) introduced a bipartisan bill entitled the Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act in the US House of Representatives. The legislative objective is to provide a mechanism to help musicians, artists, writers, and other creators determine if their copyrighted work was used to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) models without their permission, and if so, to pursue compensation for that use. A bipartisan group of senators also reintroduced the TRAIN Act in the US Senate.

The proposed legislation would create a new legal mechanism allowing copyright owners to use federal court subpoena power to obtain information about the materials used to train generative AI models. The bill would establish the first federal statutory definition of “generative AI models.” A generative AI model would be defined as an AI model that “emulates the structure and characteristics of input data in order to generate derived synthetic content,” including images, video, audio, text, and other digital content, as well as any subsequent variation of such a model.

Under the proposed framework, an owner of one or more copyrighted works would be entitled to seek a subpoena compelling a generative AI developer to produce copies of, or records sufficient to identify, the copyrighted works (or portions thereof) that were used to train the developer’s model. To obtain a subpoena, the copyright owner would submit a request to a US district court clerk that includes a proposed subpoena and a sworn affidavit attesting to the owner’s subjective good faith belief that the developer used some or all of the owner’s copyrighted works to train its generative AI model. The affidavit would also attest that the subpoena’s purpose is to obtain the owner’s copyrighted materials or records to sufficiently identify the owner’s copyrighted materials used to train the model, and that the copies or records requested would be used solely to protect the copyright owner’s rights.

Once a subpoena was issued and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the developer would be required to “expeditiously disclose” the requested copies or records to the copyright owner or an authorized representative.

The TRAIN Act also includes two enforcement provisions. First, if a developer fails to comply with a subpoena, the court may apply a rebuttable presumption that the developer did in fact use the copyrighted works to train its model. Second, if a copyright owner seeks a subpoena in bad faith, the recipient may pursue sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

If enacted, the TRAIN Act would significantly expand transparency obligations for developers of generative AI models and provide copyright owners with a new tool to investigate potential unauthorized uses of their works.

IRPA claims accrue at first publication, not first discovery

by Ashley K. Justice | Feb 5, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed that the single publication rule applies to claims brought under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), 765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq. Giovannelli v. Walmart Inc., Case Nos. 24-2869; -3103; 25-1185; -1223 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026) (Brennan, Scudder, Pryor, JJ.)

In 2009, US Army veteran Nicholas Giovannelli was unknowingly photographed while deployed in Afghanistan. The image was later posted on a US Department of Defense website, downloaded by Stocktrek Images, and then licensed and sold as posters on public retail websites, including Posterazzi, Walmart, Pixels, and a large e-commerce company. Giovannelli remained unaware of the photo’s commercial use until 2020, when a friend discovered the posters while searching for their unit number.

Giovannelli sued Walmart, Stocktrek, Pixels, the large e-commerce company, and Posterazzi under the IRPA, which prohibits the unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name or likeness. After removal to federal court, the cases were severed to address misjoinder.

Under Illinois law, IRPA claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The defendants argued that the claims were time barred under the single publication rule, which starts the limitations period at first publication, meaning Giovannelli would have needed to sue within one year of Pixels’ 2011 posting, Walmart’s 2016 posting, or the large e-commerce company’s 2018 posting. Giovannelli countered that the discovery rule should apply because the publications were “hidden” or “inherently undiscoverable,” asserting he had no reason to know of the posters until 2020. The district courts granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, applying the single-publication rule. Giovannelli appealed.

The Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois substantive law under diversity jurisdiction, made an “Erie guess” because the Supreme Court of Illinois has not addressed whether IRPA claims follow the single publication rule or the discovery rule. The Seventh Circuit looked to the 2006 Illinois Appellate Court decision in Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, which rejected the discovery rule in the IRPA context. Although Giovannelli argued that Blair’s discussion was dicta, the Seventh Circuit explained that dicta may still guide an Erie analysis. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, finding that Illinois would apply the single publication rule to IRPA claims. The Court explained that the exception for hidden or inherently undiscoverable publications did not apply because the posters were available on public websites, and Giovannelli’s friend located them through a simple search using their unit number.

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS