The 1976 Copyright Act did not preempt applications for attorney fees filed by two auction houses following a determination that the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA)—a statute that grants visual artists a right to receive 5% of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances—was expressly preempted by the 1976 Act with respect to CRRA claims regarding sales that took place after its January 1, 1978 effective date, but not with respect to sales that occurred between the CRRA’s effective date of January 1, 1977, and January 1, 1978, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has held. In granting the applications, the appeals court determined that even though the 1977 claims against one of the auction houses had been remanded, the auction house qualified as a prevailing party because those claims were not subject to the CRRA fee-shifting provision (Close v. Sotheby’s Inc., December 3, 2018, per curiam).

Case date: 03 December 2018
Case number: No. 16-56234
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Copyright Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *