Ninth Circuit Sends Photo Copyright Case Back for Jury Trial

“The Ninth Circuit said that the right to a jury trial can only be withdrawn if the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent.”

jury - https://depositphotos.com/12286502/stock-photo-trial-by-jury.htmlLast week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in a copyright dispute between Erickson Productions and Kraig Kast, ultimately reversing and remanding the case back to the district court for a jury trial. The appeals court ruled that the district court erred by not conducting a jury trial after a first appeal by Kast.

The case began when Jim Erickson of Erickson Productions accused Kast of the unauthorized use of three copyrighted photos on his developmental website. The case was heard before a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which awarded Erickson $450,000 in damages after finding that Kast willfully infringed on the copyright.

Kast appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and in 2019, the appeals court remanded the case on two issues: the willfulness of the infringement and the amount of awarded damages. The Ninth Circuit vacated the willfulness ruling due to an error in the jury instructions.

Subsequently, the district court once again ruled that the infringement was willful and awarded Erickson $450,000 in damages. However, this ruling was entered without being heard before a jury.

Kast’s most recent appeal asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate and remand the district court’s second ruling because it was not heard by a jury. The appeals court agreed.

“No properly instructed jury has ever determined willfulness, and the appropriate remedy is a new trial on both issues,” wrote the Ninth Circuit judges.

Right to a Jury Trial

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit cited Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., which held that the Seventh Amendment affirms the “right to a jury trial where the copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages.” The Copyright Act also establishes that this right extends to “all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages.”

The appeals court determined that willfulness is an issue relevant to damages because it “dramatically expands the range of possible statutory damages.”

The $450,000 damage figure was reached because a court can award up to $150,000 per work infringed, and Kast was accused of infringing on three of Erickson’s copyrighted works.

Kast argued that the case should be vacated once again, as his Seventh Amendment rights were not satisfied because no properly instructed jury has ever determined willfulness or the amount of damages.

Instead of holding a new trial before a jury, the district court “believed it was bound by this court’s mandate to decide the issues on the existing record,” according to the Ninth Circuit. Thus, the appeals court ruled that a new trial on willfulness and damages is appropriate.

Erickson’s Case

Erickson attempted to argue that Kast waived any right to a second trial before a jury by citing a previous ruling that ruled the Seventh Amendment can be waived.

However, Erickson was fighting an uphill battle with the argument. The appeals court found it unconvincing, as precedent also states that a jury trial is a fundamental right, so a court “should indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.”

Jacob v. City of New York described the Seventh Amendment as “a right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen . . . [that it] should be jealously guarded by the courts.”

Erickson claimed that Kast waived any right to a second jury trial by failing to demand it. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed and said that the right to a jury trial can only be withdrawn if the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent.

The court also disagreed with Erickson’s argument that Kast was attempting to relitigate properly denied issues. Erickson additionally cited Kast’s lack of objection to an expedited trial as knowing participation in a bench trial.

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit judges ruled that “Kast’s amenab[ility] to an expedited bench trial cannot be read as a knowing participation in a bench trial.”

The judges concluded, “Kast did not waive his Seventh Amendment jury trial demand, and the proper remedy is remand for a new trial to determine willfulness and statutory damages.”

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 12286502
Author: everett225

 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

No comments yet.