Reed Elvesier v. Muchnick

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the law restricts federal court jurisdiction over copyright infringement actions.

The dispute centers around the $18 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of freelance writers whose work had been reproduced online without their express consent.

In September 2005, a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement.

But two years later, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned the settlement. In a 2-1 ruling, the court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims relating to unregistered freelance articles.

"The overwhelming majority of class members’ claims concern the infringement of unregistered copyrights. We hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over those claims," Judge Chester J. Straub wrote. "We therefore vacate the certification and settlement approval, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

A group of publishing companies, including Reed Elsevier, the New York Times Co. and Dow Jones & Co., asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the appeals court decision conflicted with the high court’s own ruling in the 2001 case, New York Times v. Tasini:

“This case presents an issue of exceptional importance to the nation's archival databases, newspaper and magazine publishers and freelance authors.”

On March 2, the Supreme Court accepted the case for review. The justices will hear oral arguments in the fall.

Question presented: Does 17 USC 411-a restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions?

The Supreme Court held today that the law does not restrict federal court jurisdiction over copyright infringement actions.

The dispute centers around the $18 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of freelance writers whose work had been reproduced online without their express consent.

In September 2005, a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement.

But two years later, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned the settlement. In a 2-1 ruling, the court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims relating to unregistered freelance articles.

"The overwhelming majority of class members’ claims concern the infringement of unregistered copyrights. We hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over those claims," Judge Chester J. Straub wrote. "We therefore vacate the certification and settlement approval, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

A group of publishing companies, including Reed Elsevier, the New York Times Co. and Dow Jones & Co., asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the appeals court decision conflicted with the high court’s own ruling in the 2001 case, New York Times v. Tasini:

“This case presents an issue of exceptional importance to the nation's archival databases, newspaper and magazine publishers and freelance authors.”

On March 2, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court the Court reversed and remanded the case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer.Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in the decision.

Question presented: Does 17 USC 411-a restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions?