Discovery, Injury, and Diligence: Reconciling Subjective and Objective Copyright Limitations Standards Post-Warner Chappell

Abstract

This Article examines the evolving interpretation of the Copyright Act's statute of limitations in light of RADesign, Inc. v. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc., a case pending before the Supreme Court. Following the Court's decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (2024), which left open the question of whether copyright claims can be based on infringement occurring more than three years prior, the circuit courts remain split on whether the three-year statute of limitations runs from the time of infringement (the "injury rule") or from when the copyright holder discovers the infringement (the "discovery rule"). Through analysis of the Grecco case, which involves photographs allegedly infringed in 2017 but discovered in 2021, this Article explores the tension between objective and subjective standards for determining reasonable diligence in discovering infringement. We propose a framework that considers the nature of copyrighted works, technological capabilities, and industry practices, while examining the potential role of proportionality in evaluating reasonable discovery efforts. The Article draws parallels to property law concepts like adverse possession and inquiry notice to argue for a balanced approach that protects creators' rights while maintaining legal certainty. This analysis is particularly timely given the challenges digital creators face in monitoring vast online spaces for infringement and the Supreme Court's opportunity to resolve the circuit split on this fundamental issue of copyright law.

Keywords: Copyright Infringement, discovery rule, statue of limitations, reasonable dilligence, digital rights management