A photographer’s lawsuit is at the center of a Supreme Court petition that could change how long creators have to sue when their work gets stolen. The big question at the heart of the petition is: Does the clock for filing a copyright lawsuit start when the infringement happens — or when the photographer actually finds out about the infringement?
In 2017, photographer Michael Grecco took photos of model Amber Rose wearing shoes designed by Ruthie Davis, an award-winning women’s shoe designer.
Later that same year, shoe designer Ruthie Davis posted some of Grecco’s photos of Rose on her website and X (the platform then known as Twitter) without his permission.
However, Grecco didn’t sue Davis, of RA Designs, over the copyright infringement until 2021, four years after the photos were taken.
The district court originally dismissed Grecco’s case as time-barred because the photographer was considered a “sophisticated plaintiff” who should have discovered the infringement sooner.
The district court, citing Grecco’s “relative sophistication as an experienced litigator in identifying and bringing causes of action for unauthorized uses of [his] copyrighted work,” dismissed the photographer’s complaint as time-barred.
But the Second Circuit later reversed the district court’s decision, saying there’s no legal basis that sophisticated plaintiffs like Grecco get treated differently.
When Does the Copyright Clock Start?
However, in January, shoe designer Davis filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule that the Second Circuit was wrong in its decision. Davis wants the Court to rule that the clock starts ticking the moment the infringement happens — not when the artist finds out. Davis argues that courts have wrongly allowed the “discovery rule” (where time starts when a copyright owner discovers the problem) without any real backing in the law — and that the “injury rule” (where the statute of limitations starts at the moment of infringement) should apply.
Her petition argues that the Second Circuit has incorrectly adopted the discovery rule without good reason and that under the Copyright Act, a claim “accrues” when the infringement happens, not when it’s discovered.
But, according to Law360, Grecco urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to reject Davis’ appeal.
This question was recently touched upon in the Supreme Court’s decision in Warner-Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy in 2024. In that case, the Court assumed (without formally deciding) that the discovery rule applied and allowed a copyright owner to recover damages for infringement that had begun years earlier. However, it left the broader issue of whether the discovery rule should apply at all unresolved. Grecco and Davis are now pressing the Court to address the question head-on.
With this case, the Supreme Court is being asked again to finally decide whether copyright owners, such as photographers, can sue years after an infringement if they only discover it later, or whether they lose the right to sue if more than three years (the statute of limitations for copyright violation) have passed since the infringement happened, even if they had no idea it occurred.
Image credits: Header photo licensed via Depositphotos and center photo via court documents.
Source link