Copyright Infringement Litigation Attorney

Copyright litigation is a federal matter: the Copyright Act gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction, and the outcome usually turns on registration timing, whether a fair use defense applies, and how a court measures statutory damages. A copyright infringement litigation attorney evaluates whether a valid copyright was infringed, whether a defense defeats or narrows the claim, and what relief a court is realistically likely to grant on the record available. Keyhani LLC litigates copyright disputes in federal court for both rights holders enforcing their works and companies and individuals accused of infringement, including takedown and artificial intelligence (AI) training disputes.

Copyright Infringement Litigation in Federal Court

A copyright infringement case is a federal claim. The Copyright Act grants the owner a set of exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 — to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, and publicly perform or display it — and 17 U.S.C. § 501 makes anyone who violates those rights an infringer. Because copyright claims arise under federal law, they are litigated in the federal district courts.

To prevail, a plaintiff must prove two things: ownership of a valid copyright, and copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. The first element depends on originality, which the Supreme Court addressed in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Feist holds that originality requires only a minimal degree of creativity, but that facts and the effort of compiling them — the discredited “sweat of the brow” theory — are not protectable. A white-pages directory arranged alphabetically lacked the creative spark copyright requires.

The second element, copying, is often proved circumstantially through the defendant’s access to the work plus substantial similarity between the protected expression and the accused work. Separating protectable expression from unprotectable ideas, facts, and functional elements is where many copyright cases are won or lost, and it is a recurring battleground in software and design disputes.

Registration: A Litigation Prerequisite

Before an owner of a U.S. work can sue, the work generally must be registered. Under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), a civil action for infringement of a U.S. work cannot be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019), a unanimous Supreme Court held that registration is made only when the U.S. Copyright Office acts on the application, not when the owner merely submits it.

That timing rule shapes litigation strategy. An owner who has not yet obtained registration may face a delay before filing, or may pay for special handling to expedite the Copyright Office’s decision. Registration timing also affects remedies: statutory damages and attorney’s fees are generally available only for infringement that occurs after registration (or within a grace period after first publication). Assessing where a matter stands on registration is one of the first questions a copyright litigator answers.

Fair Use: The Central Defense

Fair use is the defense that decides many copyright cases. Codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, it directs courts to weigh four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use on the potential market for the work. No factor is dispositive on its own, and courts weigh them together.

The modern framework comes from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), which held that a commercial parody can be fair use and introduced the “transformative” inquiry under the first factor — whether the new work adds new expression, meaning, or message rather than merely superseding the original. Campbell also rejected any presumption that commercial use is unfair.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have refined that inquiry. In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), the Court assumed the copied material was copyrightable and held that Google’s copying of roughly 11,500 lines of Java application programming interface (API) declaring code was fair use as a matter of law, emphasizing the transformative, functional purpose of reimplementing the interface in a new platform. Two years later, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), narrowed the first factor: where a secondary use shares substantially the same commercial purpose as the original — there, licensing a Prince image to a magazine — new aesthetic meaning alone did not make the use transformative, and the first factor favored the photographer.

The DMCA: Takedowns, Safe Harbors, and Anti-Circumvention

Much modern copyright conflict runs through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512, an online service provider can obtain a safe harbor from monetary liability for user-posted material if it lacks disqualifying knowledge, does not receive a financial benefit attributable to infringement it can control, and expeditiously removes material after a proper takedown notice under § 512(c). A counter-notification under § 512(g) then lets a user have the material restored, and § 512(f) imposes liability on anyone who knowingly, materially misrepresents that material is infringing.

These provisions generate their own litigation. Rights holders sue over deficient or ignored takedowns and over conduct that falls outside the safe harbor; users and platforms litigate abusive or bad-faith notices under § 512(f). A separate provision, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, prohibits circumventing technological measures that control access to a copyrighted work — the anti-circumvention rules that govern digital locks and access controls — and creates claims independent of ordinary infringement.

Copyright and AI: An Unsettled Litigation Front

Whether training an AI system on copyrighted works is infringement or fair use is being decided case by case, and the early district-court rulings do not point in one direction. The question is unsettled, the decisions are fact-dependent, and appeals are already underway — so any current answer should be read as provisional.

In Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2025), the court held that using lawfully acquired books to train a large language model (LLM) was “exceedingly transformative” and a fair use, while separately holding that downloading and retaining pirated copies to build a permanent library was not. That ruling did not end the case: Anthropic later agreed to a landmark class settlement over the pirated-library claims, granted final approval in 2026 — a reminder that a favorable fair-use ruling on one theory does not resolve exposure on another. Two days later, in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. 2025), a different judge found training to be fair use on that record — but rested the ruling on the authors’ failure to develop a market-harm theory, expressly leaving room for a “market dilution” argument in a future case.

Enforcement has also succeeded. In Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., 765 F. Supp. 3d 382 (D. Del. 2025), the court rejected a fair use defense where a non-generative legal-research tool used copyrighted headnotes to build a competing product, finding the use non-transformative and a market substitute. That decision is now on appeal to the Third Circuit. The practical lesson for owners and accused developers alike is that outcomes depend on how the data was obtained, what the system does, and the market-harm evidence a party actually develops.

Remedies: Damages, Profits, and Injunctions

A copyright plaintiff who proves infringement can pursue several forms of relief. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504, the owner may recover actual damages plus the infringer’s additional profits or elect for statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per work, which a court may raise to as much as $150,000 per work for willful infringement or reduce to as little as $200 for an innocent infringer. Statutory damages let an owner recover without proving actual loss, but the election is generally available only where registration preceded the infringement.

Courts may also award costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. § 505 — a two-way exposure that shapes settlement value for both sides. Injunctive relief is available to stop ongoing infringement, and secondary-liability theories can reach parties beyond the direct infringer. In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court held that selling videocassette recorders (VCRs) capable of substantial noninfringing uses, such as time-shifting, did not by itself create contributory liability — a doctrine that still frames disputes over technologies and platforms.

Remedy	Authority	What It Means in Practice
Actual damages + profits	17 U.S.C. § 504(b)	The owner’s proven loss plus the infringer’s attributable profits; requires evidence of harm and the defendant’s revenue.
Statutory damages	17 U.S.C. § 504(c)	$750–$30,000 per work; up to $150,000 for willful infringement, as low as $200 for an innocent infringer. Generally requires timely registration.
Attorney’s fees and costs	17 U.S.C. § 505	Discretionary award to the prevailing party — a two-way risk that drives settlement analysis.
Injunction	17 U.S.C. § 502	A court order to stop ongoing or threatened infringement; strongest when the request is narrow and evidence-based.

Copyright Matters We Handle

Both Sides: Enforcement and Defense

Copyright disputes are not one-sided, and the same facts read differently depending on which chair a party sits in. An owner works to establish a valid registration, protected expression, and market harm. An accused party works to defeat or narrow the claim through fair use, lack of originality, license, or independent creation. Litigating both sides sharpens the firm’s preparation of either one for summary judgment and trial.

Issue	Owner / Plaintiff	Accused Party / Defense
Ownership and validity	Establish a valid, timely registration and a clear chain of title.	Test originality, authorship, work-for-hire, and registration defects.
Copying and similarity	Show access plus substantial similarity of protected expression.	Isolate unprotectable ideas, facts, and functional elements; show independent creation.
Fair use	Frame the use as competing in the same market and non-transformative.	Tie purpose, amount taken, and market effect to a genuine transformative use.
Remedies exposure	Pursue statutory damages, profits, fees, and an injunction.	Attack willfulness, registration timing, and the scope of any injunction.

Where We Litigate Copyright Cases

Copyright infringement claims arise under federal law and are heard in the federal district courts, so a copyright matter is a federal litigation question from the start. Keyhani LLC litigates in federal courts nationwide and serves U.S. and international clients, appearing with local counsel where a court requires it. The firm assesses registration status, the strength of the infringement and fair use positions, and the realistic path to relief before a case is filed or answered.

The firm’s regional focus includes the District of New Jersey, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern Virginia, and Washington, DC but because copyright claims are federal, the firm handles copyright matters wherever the dispute and the evidence require.

Why Keyhani LLC

Keyhani LLC is a litigation-led intellectual property boutique that also handles IP licensing disputes, IP consulting, transactional work, and IP mediation and arbitration. In copyright matters, the firm’s work centers on the decisions that actually move a case: whether registration supports the claim, whether fair use defeats or narrows it, how statutory damages and fees shape settlement, and how to frame relief without overreaching.

Founder Darius Keyhani has more than 20 years of intellectual property litigation experience and has served as lead counsel in 80+ federal cases, with federal appellate experience and admission to the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Frances Stephenson, a member of the firm admitted in New York, focuses on intellectual property litigation, including copyright and related disputes. Together they handle enforcement and defense across the full arc of a copyright case, and coordinate copyright claims with related trade secret litigation and other IP matters when a dispute spans more than one right.

Copyright Litigation FAQ