Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
Does the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee a right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages under the Copyright Act?
The Decision
8-0 decision · Opinion by Clarence Thomas · 1998
Majority Opinion— Clarence Thomasconcurring ↓
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act, including the amount of those damages. The vote was 8-0, with all participating justices agreeing on the outcome.
The Court began by examining the text of the Copyright Act itself. Section 504(c) states that a copyright owner may elect to recover statutory damages 'in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.' The Court acknowledged that the word 'court' in this provision is ambiguous — it could refer to a judge alone or to the court as an institution that includes a jury. Because the statute did not clearly resolve the question, the Court turned to the Constitution.
Applying its established Seventh Amendment framework, the Court asked two questions: first, whether the type of action at issue was analogous to cases tried in courts of law — as opposed to courts of equity — in 18th-century England; and second, whether the remedy sought was legal or equitable in nature. On the first question, the Court found that actions to recover damages for copyright infringement were historically tried at law before juries, both in England and in early American courts. On the second question, the Court noted that statutory damages are a form of monetary relief, and monetary damages have long been considered the classic form of legal remedy to which the right of jury trial attaches.
Because both prongs of the analysis pointed in the same direction, the Court concluded that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial whenever a copyright holder elects statutory damages. This means the jury — not the judge — must determine the actual amount awarded within the range set by the statute. The case was sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he agreed with the result but expressed concern about language in the majority opinion that could be read to suggest Congress might be able to strip the right to a jury trial on statutory damages if it wrote the statute more clearly. Scalia emphasized that if the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial right, that right is constitutional in nature and cannot be overridden by Congress simply through clearer statutory language assigning the task to a judge.
Background & Facts
C. Elvin Feltner, Jr. was the owner and operator of several television stations across the southeastern United States. His stations had licensing agreements with Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. to broadcast various syndicated television programs. Over time, Feltner's stations fell behind on their royalty payments to Columbia. After Feltner failed to make good on the overdue amounts, Columbia sent notices terminating the license agreements, meaning Feltner's stations no longer had legal permission to air the programs.
Despite receiving these termination notices, Feltner's stations continued to broadcast the Columbia programs without authorization. Columbia Pictures Television then sued Feltner for copyright infringement in federal court. Rather than seeking to prove its actual financial losses — which can be complicated and uncertain — Columbia elected to receive 'statutory damages' under Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act, a provision that allows a copyright holder to recover a set range of damages for each work infringed, as determined by the court.
Feltner requested a jury trial on the question of how much he owed in statutory damages. The federal District Court denied that request, ruling that the Copyright Act gives the judge — not a jury — the power to determine the amount of statutory damages. The judge then conducted a bench trial and ultimately awarded Columbia $8.8 million in statutory damages, covering multiple infringed works across Feltner's stations.
Feltner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the text of the Copyright Act assigned statutory damages determinations to judges and that the Seventh Amendment did not independently guarantee a jury trial on this issue.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve an important constitutional question: whether a copyright defendant has a right to have a jury, rather than a judge sitting alone, decide the amount of statutory damages owed for copyright infringement. The question implicated the fundamental right to a jury trial in civil cases preserved by the Seventh Amendment.
The Arguments
Feltner argued that the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed him the right to have a jury — not a judge — determine the amount of statutory damages he owed for copyright infringement. He maintained that because copyright infringement is fundamentally a legal claim seeking monetary damages, it falls squarely within the type of case historically tried to juries.
- The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving legal claims, and a lawsuit for monetary damages for copyright infringement is a quintessential legal claim.
- At common law in 18th-century England and early America, copyright infringement actions were tried before juries, including the determination of damages amounts.
- Even if the Copyright Act's text could be read to assign the statutory damages determination to a judge, Congress cannot override a constitutional jury trial right guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment.
Columbia argued that the Copyright Act clearly assigns the determination of statutory damages to the judge, not a jury, because the statute says the amount should be what 'the court considers just.' Columbia maintained that Congress had the power to create this statutory remedy and define how it would be administered.
- The text of Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act uses the phrase 'as the court considers just,' which indicates Congress intended that judges — not juries — would exercise discretion in setting the amount of statutory damages.
- Statutory damages are a creature of legislative design, not a traditional common-law remedy, so Congress has broad latitude to determine the procedures for awarding them.
- Allowing judges to set statutory damages within a defined range promotes consistency, predictability, and expertise in the application of copyright law.