A federal appeals court in New York has refused a textbook publisher’s request to reduce a $130,750 award that a jury granted to photographer Louis Psihoyos last year for copyright infringement.
Psihoyos sued publisher John Wiley & Sons in 2011 for infringement of eight of his photographs. Claims over four of the images were dismissed before trial, but a jury found Wiley liable for willful infringement of two of the remaining images and awarded statutory damages totaling $130,000. At the same time, the jury found Wiley liable for non-willful infringement of a third image, and awarded $750. It concluded that Wiley’s use of the remaining image was not infringing.
Wiley appealed, arguing that the trial court erred because it refused to consider whether the jury award was reasonably related to Psihoyos’s actual loss. Wiley called it “an epitome of a run-away award” in one of its appeal briefs.
But the appeals court rejected Wiley’s argument, saying, “Although revenue lost is one factor to consider, we have not held that there must be a direct correlation between statutory damages and actual damages.”
The appeals court went on to say, “The District Court concluded that several of the relevant factors could explain the jury’s award based on the evidence…in particular, the evidence supported a finding of willfulness and that Wiley earned substantial profits, and the jury may have viewed Wiley as a repeat infringer in need of deterrence.
“In sum, we discern no error” in the District Court’s denial of Wiley’s request to vacate the award or grant a new trial, the appeals court said.
The appeals court also rejected Wiley’s assertion that the trial court should have thrown out Psihoyos’ claims on the grounds that the statute of limitations on those claims had expired.
The appeals court said that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations “did not bar any of Psihoyos’s infringement claims” because he filed those claims within three years of discovering the infringements, as the law requires.
Wiley had argued that the clock for the three-year statute of limitations begins at the instant of infringement, not at the discovery of that infringement by the copyright holder.
Although the appeals ruling was an overall victory for Psihoyos, he also lost an appeal to restore his infringement claims for the four images that the trial court dismissed from the case. The lower court dismissed those claims because Psihoyos didn’t register the images before he filed his infringement claims, as required by law.
The appeals court said the trial court was correct to dismiss those claims because of Psihoyos’s failure to register them prior to filing suit.