Accrual of Copyright Claims: Comprehensive Analysis of Diversey v. Da (738 F.3d 1196)

Introduction

In the landmark case Andrew Diversey v. Da, adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on December 23, 2013, the plaintiff, Andrew Diversey, sought legal redress against several members and administrators of the University of New Mexico (UNM). Diversey alleged that his copyright to an unpublished dissertation was infringed by the defendants through unauthorized copying and distribution of his academic work. The core legal issue revolved around the statutory limitation period for bringing forth a copyright infringement claim and whether the infringement was a "continuing wrong," thereby affecting the accrual of such claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court initially dismissed Diversey's complaint as untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The key determination hinged on when the copyright infringement claim accrued. The Tenth Circuit applied the majority view, which posits that a copyright claim accrues within three years of the plaintiff becoming aware of the infringement. Consequently, since Diversey filed his suit in June 2012, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal concerning unauthorized copying but reversed it regarding unauthorized distribution, deeming that claim timely filed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced multiple precedents to substantiate its ruling:

ROLEY v. NEW WORLD PICTURES, LTD.: Established that copyright claims accrue when the plaintiff is aware or has reason to be aware of the infringement.
Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: Supported the accrual framework and was discussed in relation to knowledge of infringement.
TAYLOR v. MEIRICK: Presented the "continuing wrong" exception, which the majority ultimately rejected in this context.
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music: Affirmed that each act of infringement constitutes a distinct harm, influencing the separate accrual dates.
Other supporting cases included Baxter v. Curtis Indus., STONE v. WILLIAMS, and Rocking Chair Enterprises v. Macerich SCG Ltd..

These precedents collectively reinforced the court's stance against the "continuing wrong" doctrine and underscored the importance of timely filing under the three-year limitation period.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the statutory language of 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), emphasizing that the limitation period does not account for ongoing infringements unless an applicable tolling principle is invoked. The majority opinion argued that the "continuing wrong" doctrine lacks statutory support within this context. Instead, the accrual hinges strictly on the plaintiff's knowledge or constructive awareness of the infringement.

Furthermore, the court addressed Diversey's argument for multiple accrual dates based on distinct infringing acts. It concurred that unauthorized copying and distribution are separate violations under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) and § 106(3), respectively, thus necessitating independent consideration of their accrual.

On the matter of fair use, the court evaluated the four-factor test under 17 U.S.C. § 107. It found that the defendants' use leaned towards fair use only on the first factor (purpose and character), but the other factors, particularly the nature of the work and the effect on its value, heavily favored Diversey.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future copyright infringement litigation:

Clarification on Accrual: Reinforces that copyright infringement claims accrue within three years of knowledge, eliminating ambiguity around "continuing wrongs."
Separate Accrual for Distinct Infringements: Establishes that different types of infringement (copying vs. distribution) must be assessed separately for accrual dates.
Tolling Principles Suffice: Affirms that existing tolling doctrines are adequate for cases where infringers intentionally obscure their activities.
Fair Use Evaluation: Demonstrates a balanced approach to fair use, ensuring that unpublished works receive robust protection against unauthorized distribution.

Legal practitioners will need to pay meticulous attention to the timeline of awareness when advising clients on the viability of filing infringement claims. Additionally, institutions housing academic works will need to enforce stringent protocols to respect authors' copyright claims to avoid litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Accrual of Claims

In legal terms, "accrual" refers to the point in time when a plaintiff's right to sue begins. For copyright infringement, this occurs when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know about the infringement.

Continuing Wrong Doctrine

This doctrine suggests that in cases where wrongful acts are ongoing, the limitation period may not start until the infringement ceases. The court, however, dismissed this concept for copyright cases, asserting that the statute's clear language does not support it.

Fair Use Factors

Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. It is assessed based on four factors:

Purpose and character of the use (e.g., commercial vs. educational)
Nature of the copyrighted work
Amount and substantiality of the portion used
Effect of the use on the work's market value

In this case, the use favored fair use primarily in the educational and non-commercial context but was outweighed by the nature and extent of the use.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit's decision in Andrew Diversey v. Da provides a nuanced interpretation of the accrual of copyright infringement claims. By rejecting the "continuing wrong" doctrine and upholding the three-year limitation period based on the plaintiff's knowledge of infringement, the court clarifies critical aspects of copyright law. Additionally, by recognizing separate accrual dates for distinct types of infringement, the ruling ensures that plaintiffs can pursue viable claims without being precluded by technical limitations. This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action and meticulous documentation in protecting intellectual property rights.