Statutory damages are a range of damages set by Congress. The range to
be awarded depends on the infringer’s conduct.
The Range of Damages
Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act provides that non-willful infringers
face statutory damages of between $750 and a maximum of $30,000 for each
work infringed. Section 504(c)(2) states that willful infringers may be
assessed damages of between $750 and $150,000 per work. Section 504(c)(2)
also states that innocent infringers risk damages of not less than $200
per work. A defendant is rarely able to establish innocence; and if there
is a copyright notice on the work, defendant cannot claim innocence.
See 17 U.S.C. §401(d); Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Pub. Co.,
240 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2001).
Willfulness is not defined in the Copyright Act. Courts have filled the
gap, holding a defendant willfully infringed where it knew, had reason
to know or recklessly disregarded that its conduct constituted copyright
See Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413
F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir. 2005). Willfulness will almost certainly be found where defendant continued to
infringe in defiance of court order.
See Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Vroom, 186 F.3d 283, 288-89 (2d Cir.1999)
(Maximum statutory damages awarded where defendant “chose to ignore
the injunction” [prohibiting continuing use of the infringing program]). Willfulness will also likely be found where defendant ignores a cease
and desist letter.
See Getaped.Com, Inc. v. Cangemi, 188 F. Supp.2d 398, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (“Moreover, defendants' infringing activities continued
despite notice from Getaped. This evidence provides sufficient support
for a finding that defendants' acted in reckless disregard of plaintiff's
Statutory Damages Can Be Substantial
Statutory damages can be in the millions if the evidence indicates that
defendant knew plaintiff was the copyright holder and nevertheless exploited
plaintiff’s work without authorization.
See Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 455
(D. Md. 2004) (Jury award of statutory damages of $19.7 million); Columbia
Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1189
(9th Cir. 2001) (Statutory damages award of more than $31 million).
Further, the award does not have to be in proportion to plaintiff’s
See, e.g., Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 113 ($275,000
award sustained although defendant’s profits were only $19,000;
“statutory damages are not meant to be merely compensatory or restitutionary”).
Statutory damages can be assessed in the absence of actual damages to deter
See Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th
Cir. 1990). For example in
Virtual Studios, Inc. v. Beaulieu Grp., LLC, 987 F. Supp. 2d 769 (E.D.
Tenn. 2013), the jury assessed $150,000 in statutory damages for each of the 13 works
infringed for a total of $1,950,000, stating, “[g]iven Beaulieu's
[defendant’s] enormous resources, the Court simply finds it difficult
to describe the jury's verdict in this case as severe or oppressive.
This is particularly true given the nature of the Copyright Act's
statutory damage provision, which is intended to discourage copyright
A good faith belief that the use was fair may negate willfulness so long
as that belief was formed before the unauthorized use began. See,
e.g., Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 584
n.9 (6th Cir. 2007)(Good faith belief will cancel willfulness if defendant
took reasonable steps, such as obtaining advice of counsel, to determine
fair use before infringing); Branch v. Ogilvy, 772 F. Supp. 1359, 1365
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)(“O & M has established that it held a reasonable
and good faith belief that its actions did not infringe plaintiff copyright.”).
Limitations on Recovery
Further, the Copyright Act limits the number of grants of statutory damages
that may be awarded and the parties against whom those grants will be
A Single Award for Multiple Infringements of One Work
Thus, §504(c)(1) provides that the copyright owner may only recover
a single award of statutory damages “for all infringements involved
in the action with respect to any one work,” regardless of the number
of acts of infringement, whether they are separate, isolated or occurring
over many years. As one commentator noted, “an infringer will be
liable for a single statutory award whether it makes one copy of a copyrighted
painting or one thousand and whether it performs the copyrighted work
once or nightly over a period of months,” 3 Paul Goldstein, Goldstein
On Copyright § 126.96.36.199. But in fixing the award within the statutory
range, the court or jury is likely to increase the amount in light of
the number of individual infringements.
A Single Award Where Multiple Parties Collectively Infringe
Further, where multiple parties acting in concert infringe and are therefore
jointly and severally liable, plaintiff is only entitled to one award
against these parties. Section 504(c)(1) provides that a copyright owner
“may elect … to recover … an award of statutory damages
for all infringements involved in the action with respect to any one work….
for which any one infringer is liable individually or for which any two
or more infringers are liable jointly or severally” (emphasis added).
This section relies on the common law to define joint and several liability.
In determining that liability, it makes no difference whether defendants
engaged in the same infringing act or demonstrated the same level of willfulness.
The Act “is unconcerned about gradations of blameworthiness.”
See Fitzgerald Pub. Co. v. Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F.2d 1110, 1117 (2d Cir.
1986) (“Consideration of these factors in setting the statutory
damage award sometimes results-- on account of their several and joint
liability-- in a less culpable defendant being held liable in an amount
greater than otherwise would be the case had it appeared in the action
alone. This possibility is not a fatal obstacle. … [T]he relevant
faults of the defendants are irrelevant.”).
The One-Work Limitation in 504(c)(1)
Another limit is set forth in the last sentence of section 504(c)(1). It
provides that “all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work” (the “one-work limitation”).
But the statute does not indicate whether the compilation is the one created
by plaintiff (the copyrighted work) or the one created by the defendant
(the infringing work).
WB Music Corp. v. RTV Comm. Group, Inc., 445 F.3d 538, 541 (2d Cir. 2006)
and Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010), have now clarified at least in the Second Circuit.
WB Music and
Bryant hold the one-work limitation in §504(c)(1) only applies where the
plaintiff issues or makes available the collective work. Where the defendant
creates the infringing work
WB Music says:
[F]or purposes of statutory damages under 504(c), a compilation created
without authorization from the owners of the separate, infringed copyrights
in its constituent parts is not a compilation contemplated by the last
sentence of 504(c)(1) 445 F.3d at 538.
But even if plaintiff created the compilation, plaintiff may be able to
avoid the one-work limitation if plaintiff also issued or released the
See Arista Records, LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 06 CV 5936, 2011 WL 1311771
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 04, 2011), where Judge Wood, who also wrote the opinion in
Nothing in the Copyright Act bars a plaintiff from recovering a statutory
damage award for a sound recording issued as an individual track, simply
because that plaintiff, at some point in time, also included that sound
recording as part of an album or other compilation. Although the Copyright
Act states that "all parts of a compilation . . . constitute one
work," it does not say that any work included in a compilation cannot
also exist as a separate, independent work. Here, Plaintiffs contend that
they issued many of their sound recordings as individual tracks. Therefore,
Plaintiffs "issued [these] . . . works separately," and not
only "together as a unit." Bryant, 603 F.3d at 141. Those individual
tracks are thus "works" issued by Plaintiffs that were infringed
on the LimeWire system, with respect to which Plaintiffs may seek to recover
a statutory damage award.
Navigating through this thicket of rules and limitations can be difficult
but careful attention to them will ease the way to a successful conclusion.
For more information on the topic discussed, contact
Andrew Berger at
email@example.com or at
About Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP
Since 1978, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP has combined
a powerful mix of insight, creativity, industry knowledge, senior talent
and transaction expertise to successfully guide clients through periods
of challenge and opportunity. Our mission is to deliver the highest quality
legal services in a practical and efficient manner, bringing to bear the
judgment, common sense and expertise of well trained, business minded
lawyers. Through our commitment to service and successful results, Tannenbaum
Helpern continues to earn the loyalty of our clients and a reputation
for excellence. For more information, visit www.thsh.com. Follow us on
LinkedIn and Twitter: @THSHLAW.
17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a compilation as “a work formed by the
collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work
as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ‘compilation’
includes collective works.”