U.S. Code » Title 17 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES

17 U.S.C. § 507

Limitations on actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Criminal Proceedings.—Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.(b)Civil Actions.—No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2586; Pub. L. 105–147, § 2(c), Dec. 16, 1997, 111 Stat. 2678; Pub. L. 105–304, title I, § 102(e), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2863.)Historical and Revision Noteshouse report no. 94–1476

Section 507, which is substantially identical with section 115 of the present law [section 115 of former title 17], establishes a three-year statute of limitations for both criminal proceedings and civil actions. The language of this section, which was adopted by the act of September 7, 1957 (71 Stat. 633) [Pub. L. 85–313, § 1, Sept. 7, 1957, 71 Stat. 633], represents a reconciliation of views, and has therefore been left unaltered.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–304 substituted “Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no” for “No”.

1997—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–147 substituted “5” for “three”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 514 cases (141 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017). · cites it 4× “” 17 U. S. C. §507 (b). In Petrella, the plaintiff sought relief for alleged acts of in- fringement that accrued within that 3-year period, but the lower courts nevertheless held that laches barred her claims.”
Isaac Donald Everly v. Patrice Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 8× “17 U.S.C. § 507 (b) provides that “[n]o civil action shall be maintained .”
Cambridge Literary Props., Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.M.B.H. & Co. Kg., 510 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “2d at 247 ; see also 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). II. We review de novo the entry of summary judgment in the district court.”
Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “See 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). Second, as relevant here, Wiley *123 argued that Psihoyos had failed to register the two Narcoleptic Dog photos and the Dinamation photo with the Copyright Office prior to filing suit.”
Sherman Nealy v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., 60 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 7× “17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). Under our circuit’s discovery ac- crual rule, claims about the ownership of a copyright are timely if a plaintiff files suit within three years of when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s ownership…”
William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “We face an issue of first impression for this court — whether the discovery rule or *428 the injury rule governs the accrual of claims under the Copyright Act, which has a three-year statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). Under the injury rule, a claim…”
Starz Ent., LLC v. Mgm Dom. Television Distr., 39 F.4th 1236 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “MGM SUMMARY * Copyright The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss copyright infringement claims as barred by the three-year limitations period set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). Generally, a copyright claim accrues when the infringement occurs.”
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014). · cites it 2× “" 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). This case presents the question whether the equitable defense of laches (unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing suit) may bar relief on a copyright infringement claim brought within § 507(b)'s three-year limitations period.”
Media Rights Tech., Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “If any claims had not accrued, claim preclusion does not apply. We discuss MRT’s copyright infringement, DMCA, and breach of contract claims in turn.”
Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “3d at 124 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b)). As we noted in Psihoyos, we apply “a discovery rule for copyright claims under 17 U.”
Seven Arts Filmed Entertainmen v. Content Media Corp. Plc, 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “3 On October 3, 2011, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the ground that Seven Arts’s claim for copyright infringement against Paramount was barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations, 17 U.”
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Roger Miller Music, Inc., Shannon Miller Turner, 396 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “RMMI argued that Turner’s claim for royalties was barred by laches and the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). Because its position was that Turner was entitled to 7.”
Show all 514 citing cases →
— 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) — 5 cases
Gary Friedrich Enter., LLC v. Marvel Characters, Inc., 716 F.3d 302 (2d Cir. 2013).
Jacobs v. Clark (D.N.M. 2024).
Hirsch v. Rehs Galleries, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
Parisienne v. Scripps Media, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
August Image LLC. v. Girard Ent. & Media LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
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.