Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 505 of the Copyright Act, prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants must be treated alike when courts exercise their discretion to award attorney's fees. A court may not impose a more stringent standard on a prevailing defendant, such as requiring a showing that the suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith.
Facts:
- John Fogerty, a successful musician, wrote the song 'Run Through the Jungle' in 1970 and sold the exclusive publishing rights to predecessors of Fantasy, Inc.
- Fantasy, Inc. later obtained the copyright to 'Run Through the Jungle' by assignment.
- In 1985, Fogerty published a new song titled 'The Old Man Down the Road' under a different recording label.
- Fantasy, Inc. sued Fogerty for copyright infringement, alleging that 'The Old Man Down the Road' was merely 'Run Through the Jungle' with new lyrics.
Procedural Posture:
- Fantasy, Inc. sued John Fogerty in federal District Court for copyright infringement.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Fogerty.
- Fogerty, as the prevailing party, filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
- The District Court denied the motion, applying the Ninth Circuit's 'dual standard' which required a prevailing defendant to show that the plaintiff's suit was brought frivolously or in bad faith.
- Fogerty appealed the denial of attorney's fees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, declining to abandon the dual standard.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts regarding the proper standard for awarding attorney's fees under § 505.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 505 of the Copyright Act permit courts to award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant only upon a showing that the original lawsuit was frivolous or brought in bad faith, a more demanding standard than that applied to prevailing plaintiffs?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, § 505 of the Copyright Act does not permit courts to apply a different, more stringent standard to prevailing defendants than to prevailing plaintiffs. The plain language of the statute, which refers to 'the prevailing party,' is neutral and gives no indication that plaintiffs and defendants should be treated differently. Unlike civil rights statutes where plaintiffs are seen as 'private attorneys general,' the Copyright Act's primary objective is to promote creative expression for the public good. This goal is served not only by plaintiffs successfully prosecuting infringement but also by defendants successfully defending against unmeritorious claims, which helps to clarify the boundaries of copyright law. The Court rejected respondent's argument that Congress had ratified a 'dual standard' from prior case law, finding the historical precedent was not uniform. It also rejected petitioner's call for the 'British Rule' of automatic fee-shifting, affirming that the award remains a matter of the court's discretion, which must be exercised in an evenhanded manner.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Agrees with the judgment that the dual standard is improper under the statute. The Court's opinion is 'flatly inconsistent' with its statutory analysis in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, where it interpreted virtually identical statutory language to support a dual standard by looking past the plain text to policy considerations. While Christiansburg may have been wrongly decided, the majority's attempt to distinguish it from this case is unconvincing. The correct approach is to apply the clear text of § 505, which gives no indication that prevailing plaintiffs and defendants should be treated differently. Therefore, while disagreeing with the majority's reasoning, he concurs in the judgment and would decline to extend the flawed analysis of Christiansburg to the copyright context.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a circuit split and established a uniform, 'evenhanded' approach for awarding attorney's fees in copyright infringement cases. By rejecting the 'dual standard,' the Court leveled the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants, strengthening the position of those defending against copyright claims. The ruling recognizes that successful defenses are as important to the goals of copyright law as successful prosecutions, as they prevent the law from being used to stifle creativity and help demarcate the boundaries of copyright protection. This precedent encourages defendants with meritorious defenses to fully litigate their cases, as they now have a more equitable opportunity to recover substantial legal fees without needing to prove the plaintiff's suit was frivolous.
