The Supreme Court sidestepped a major copyright showdown—again. What does it mean when infringement claims surface decades later? In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down the latest in the discovery rule debate, RAD Design’s rejected petition, and how this uncertainty affects creators, businesses, and copyright holders across the country.

Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes:

Scott: In Warner Chapel Music versus Neely, the Supreme Court acknowledged without resolving a major question in copyright law, should plaintiffs be allowed to bring infringement claims years or even decades after the alleged violation happens if they say they just recently found out about it? That question was front and center in Rad Design versus Michael Greckeau Productions. And while many expected the court to finally address it, they declined to take the case. What does this mean for copyright holders, digital content creators, and the businesses defending against those claimed? I’m Scott Hervey, a partner at the law firm of Weintraub Tobin, and I’m joined today by my colleague Tara Sattler. We are diving into the Supreme Court’s decision to leave the discovery rule untouched, at least for now. On in this episode of The Briefing. Tara, welcome back to The Briefing. It’s good to have you back.

Tara: Thanks, Scott. Glad to be here, and glad to be getting into some important copyright strategy with you here today.

Scott: Right. Yeah. So let’s start by defining what we’re actually talking about, the discovery rule. It’s a judgment doctrine that allows plaintiffs to file a copyright lawsuit within three years of discovering the infringement, even if the infringement happened long before that.

Tara: Right. And for years, courts have disagreed on whether the Copyright Act actually allows this. The text of the Copyright Act says that actions must be brought within three years after the claim accrued. But it doesn’t say whether accrual starts at the time of infringement or at the time of discovery.

Scott: And that ambiguity is at the heart of the issue. Some courts, like the Second Circuit, have embraced the discovery rule. Others are skeptical. That split was one reason the Supreme Court agreed to hear Neely in the first place. So before we get deeper into the implications of the Supreme Court denying Cert and Rad Design, we should revisit the Warner Chapel Music versus Neely decision because that case really set the stage for all of this.

Tara: Absolutely. That case started back in 2018 when music producer Sherman Neely sued Warner Chapel Music and Artist Publishing Group. He claimed that Flowrida’s 2008 song, In the Air, contained an unauthorized sample from a 1984 track Neely co-owned the rights to. Now, that’s a fairly typical copyright infringement claim, but what made this case different was the timing.

Scott: Right. So Neely had been incarcerated for a number of years, and apparently, they don’t allow radios in the jail or prison that he was in. And he argued that he only discovered the alleged infringement shortly before his filing of his lawsuit, even though the infringement happened decades earlier. The question that ended up before the Supreme Court was whether under the discovery rule, as applied by some circuit courts, a plaintiff could recover damages for acts of infringement that happened more than three years before the lawsuit was filed.

Tara: And that was a hotly contested issue. Some circuits, like the Second Circuit, applied a very strict three-year cap on damages, even when a claim was deemed timely under the discovery rule. That rule came up from the Supreme Court’s prior language in Petrela versus MGM, where Justice Gainsberg wrote that a successful plaintiff can gain retrospective relief only three years back from the time of suit. In contrast, the ninth and 11th circuits had taken the opposite view. They allowed damages to go all the way back to the first act of infringement, so long as the claim itself was timely under the discovery rule.

Scott: And in Neely, the Supreme Court resolved that split, writing for the majority, Justice Kagan held that if a plaintiff’s claim is timely under the discovery rule, then there’s no statutory cap on damages. So the court said that the Copyright Act’s remedial provisions, Section 504 and Section 505, do not impose a time-based limit on damages. They simply state that an infringer is liable for either statutory damages or actual damages and profits without any mention of a three-year time limit on those damages.

Tara: And the court also criticized the logic of the Second Circuit’s hybrid approach, where a plaintiff could file suit based on discovery but still not recover damages beyond three years. Kagan basically said, That’s incoherent. If a claim is timely, it’s timely, and the plaintiff should be entitled to full relief.

Scott: But, and this is a big but, the court explicitly declined to decide whether the discovery rule itself is valid under the copyright Act. Justin Kagan noted that both sides had assumed that the discovery rule applied, so the court didn’t reach the question of whether that assumption was legally correct. That’s where Justice Gorsuch came in.

Tara: Yeah, Gorsuch wrote a sharp dissent, and that was joined by Justice’s Thomas and Olito. He argued that the discovery rule has no place in copyright law unless there’s fraud or concealment by the defendant. He pointed out that the Copyright Act contains no discovery language and that for most of its history, courts applied a straightforward rule. The clock starts taking when the infringement happens. Gorsetch essentially said the court should have dismissed the case and waited for one that properly raised the discovery rule issue.

Scott: That’s why RAD Design was seen as the next shoe to drop. Rad Design directly asked the court to decide the validity of the discovery rule itself, which the court had ducked in nearly. But instead of taking taking that opportunity, the court decided to duck that one again, and they just let it go.

Tara: Let’s talk about the RAD Design case.

Scott: Sure. In RAD Design versus Michael Greckeau Productions, it was a professional photography company, sued RAD Design for allegedly using its copyrighted images without permission. Rad Design argued that the claims were time barred.

Tara: The Second Circuit applied the discovery rule, saying the case could go forward if the plaintiff only recently discovered the use. Rad Design then petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that the discovery rule has no place in copyright law.

Scott: And what did the court do? Nothing. It denied certiority, effectively passing on the opportunity to resolve the circuit split or the question as to the applicability of the discovery rule or legitimacy of the discovery rule. So now we’re left with conflicting rules in different parts of the country.

Tara: And we’re left with uncertainty. Businesses with a national online presence could be sued under very different standards depending on where a plaintiff files the case.

Scott: But there’s more at stake here than just legal theory. Several amakey, including MBA teams like the Pacers, Nuggets, and Magic, filed briefs supporting RAD Designs, warning that the discovery rule is being abused.

Tara: These teams pointed out that they’ve been sued for old social media content, videos posted years ago with arena back background music. The lawsuits allege infringement based on music barely audible in the clips, and yet plaintiffs are seeking damages years after the fact.

Scott: And that’s what makes the discovery rule dangerous in practice. It allows plaintiffs, sometimes opportunistic copyright enforcers or trolls, as they’re pejoratively referred to, to delay their claims, drive up damages, and strike when the defendants are least prepared.

Tara: And it’s one thing when the rule protects a genuinely unaware plaintiff. But in the digital age, when tools like the wayback-machine make it easy to find online content, it’s hard to justify a rule that allows indefinite delay.

Scott: Yeah. Based on all my viewings of prison movies. I’m darn sure that Neely had music in whatever prison he was in. All right, all jokes aside, let’s take a moment to explore how we got here. The discovery rule originated in general tort law, especially in fraud cases. Courts recognize that it would be unfair to timebar claims when a plaintiff didn’t know that they had a claim.

Tara: And over time, courts started applying that logic to copyright cases, too, particularly where the infringement wasn’t obvious. But the Copyright Act does not codify this rule, and that’s the problem.

Scott: The Petrella versus MGM decision made things even murkier. Justice Gainsberg wrote that Latches isn’t a defense to damages under the Copyright Act, but she also reaffirmed the three-year limitation on damages. Then the discovery rule crept back in through the lower courts.

Tara: And Neely really cracked that door wide open by allowing damages going back decades, as long as the claim was timely under the discovery rule. That’s why Justice Gorsuch was so frustrated. He sees the situation where the court’s past statements were being being undermined by a rule it never really endorsed.

Scott: All right, so let’s talk about practical implications. So here’s a practical question. What does all this mean for copyright enforcement and for copyright defense?

Tara: If you’re a copyright owner, the discovery rule, at least in some circuits, gives you more flexibility. But don’t abuse it. Courts can still look at whether you should have discovered the infringement earlier. And if your delay looks strategic, then that could blackfire. Right.

Scott: And I joke about Neely in the music in prisons, but that’s going to be an issue in discovery, right? Whether or not that particular prison allowed radios, whether radios were played, And that’s all about, if you’re a defendant, document everything. And if you get sued, utilize the discovery process to try to uncover whether or not the plaintiff should have discovered the infringement earlier. Archive your post, keep metadata, track when licenses were obtained or expired. You may need to show that any alleged infringement was public and was very discoverable for years.

Tara: Yeah, and in litigation, challenge the discovery roll head-on. In circuits that haven’t explicitly adopted it, a strong motion to dismiss may succeed, especially if the plaintiff had access to the content long ago.

Scott: In settlement negotiations, highlight the unfairness of retroactive claims. Judges are increasingly aware of copyright trolls. We see that all the time in these cases that we cover. And some are very skeptical of late-breaking claims for ancient posts. Well, I think that’s it for this episode of The Briefing. I think I’ve made enough fun of Neely. Thanks, Tara, for joining me today. And thank you, the listener, for listening to this episode. We hope you enjoyed it. If you did, please remember to subscribe, leave us a review, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues. And if you have any questions about the topics we covered today, please leave us a comment.