Recent decisions have rejected its holding." Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The second case, TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 262 F. Supp. 2d 185, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), concluded that "punitive damages claims for copyright infringement found to be willful are not precluded as a matter of law," in light of a softening stance under Second Circuit law.
Moreover, if a party elects to pursue actual, as opposed to statutory damages, he foregoes the ability to receive an enhancement based on the willfulness of the alleged infringement, which is only available in connection with statutory damages. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (c); see also Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 462-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Finally, irrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, "punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976."
In fact, these cases are recognized as outliers by courts and treatises alike. E.g. Falkner v. GM, LLC, 393 F.Supp.3d 927, 939 (C.D. Cal. 2018); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 463-64 (S.D. N.Y. 2008); 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.02[C][2]. The clear weight of authority is that punitive damages are unavailable in copyright infringement cases.
Common law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act. Curcio Webb L.L.C. v. Nat'l Benefit Programs Agency, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1198 (S.D. Ohio 2005); Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D. N.Y. 2008). D. Attorney's Fees and Costs
1976."); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F.Supp.2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I]rrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, 'punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'" (quoting Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983))); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act.")). See also Christopher Phelps & Associates, LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 545 (4th Cir. 2007); Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP, 329 F.3d 923, 931 (7th Cir. 2003); On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The district court correctly held that Davis is not entitled to punitive damages under the Copyright Act.
See Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd. v. Youtube, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 159, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("There is no circumstance in which punitive damages are available under the Copyright Act of 1976."); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I]rrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, 'punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'" (quoting Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983)); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act.").
See Christopher Phelps Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 545 (4th Cir. 2007). Although the plaintiffs cite Blanch v. Koons, 329 F. Supp. 2d 568, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) and TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 262 F. Supp. 2d 185, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) for the proposition that punitive damages are permitted when statutory damages cannot be pursued, these cases remain outliers and Judge Stanton, who decided Blanch, has since declared Blanch "no longer good law." See Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); see also 4-14 Nimmer on Contracts § 14-02[C][2] (referring to TVT Records as a "rogue decision [that] should not be followed"). The defendants also dispute the plaintiffs' claim for compensatory damages of $250,000.
However, plaintiffs cite no binding authority requiring the U.S. to furnish the remedy of punitive damages in suits under the Copyright Act, nor one holding that the remedies ordinarily available in infringement cases of an injunction and actual damages plus any applicable profits (see H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 158) do not suffice to deter infringement. There is no circumstance in which punitive damages are available under the Copyright Act of 1976. "Common-law punitive damages cannot be recovered under the Copyright Act."Viacom Int'l Inc. v. Youtube, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), relying primarily on Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 213 (2d Cir. 1983) ("If the action proceeds to a new trial, we note that punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976."); accord Faulkner v. Nat'l Geographic Soc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 609, 612-13, 613 n. 7, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("the Copyright Act limits recovery in this case to `actual damages' and does not permit recovery of punitive damages"); Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d 323, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Finally, irrespective of whether a plaintiff is seeking actual or statutory damages, "`punitive damages are not available under the Copyright Act of 1976.'"); 4 NIMMEP ON COPYRIGHT § 14.02[C][2], at 14-34 ("The cases are clear that exemplary or punitive damages should not be awarded in a statutory copyright infringement action.").