17 U.S.C. § 505
Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,649
cases (475 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 505 , provides in relevant part that in any copyright infringement action "the court may .”
Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (W.D. Wash. 2014). “This includes the court’s various awards for fees and expenses throughout this litigation whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 or pursuant to the attorney’s fees provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505 . The court will permit Plain- .”
Vmg Salsoul, LLC v. Madonna Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016). “The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in granting attorney’s fees to the defendants under 17 U.S.C. § 505 . The panel held that a claim premised on a legal theory adopted by the only circuit court to have addressed the issue is, as a matter of law,…”
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 873 (2019). “The question presented in this case is whether the Copyright Act's reference to "full costs" authorizes a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories of "costs" specified by Congress in the general costs statute.”
Sorenson v. Wolfson, 170 F. Supp. 3d 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “Sorenson under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 505 and 1325; and (3) for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.”
16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015). “Has No Provision Of, Or For, A ‘Merged Work,’ ” (3) “There Can Be No Work For Hire Or Assignment Without An Express Writing,” (4) Mer-kin’s copyright registration was valid, (5) attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 were unavailable in the absence of a copyright…”
Glacier Films (Usa), Inc. v. Andrey Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018). “The panel held that the district court abused its discretion by focusing on its generally unfavorable view of other BitTorrent litigation and failing to faithfully apply the “Fogerty factors” in deciding whether to award attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 . The panel remanded…”
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music, 376 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004). “7% of the composition copyright in “99 defendant under 17 U.S.C. § 505 . No other claims or parties Problems.”
Richard Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC, 908 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2018). “He argued that since the settlement produced a dismissal with prejudice, Vacuforce was the "prevailing party" for purposes of fees under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505 . The district court considered Overhauser's motion frivolous and misleading.”
Small Just. LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 873 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 2017). “Following the District Court’s order granting Xcentric’s summary judgment motion, which was issued on March 27, 2015, Xcentric moved on April 10, 2015 to recover attorney’s fees and costs from the plaintiffs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 . Section § 505 permits the “prevailing party” in…”
Susan Wakeen Doll Co., Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ashton-drake Galleries, Defendant-appellant, 272 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2001). “Attorney’s Fees Ashton’s final argument is that the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. The Copyright Act provides that “in its discretion,” a district court may “award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.”
The Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enter., Inc., Doing Bus. as Playboy Magazine, 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001). “Tsoucalas, Judge, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation), ordering it to pay, pursuant to section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 505 (“section 505”), the attorneys’ fees of De *144 fendant-Appellee Playboy Enterprises, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.