510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,901 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Holding that, when there is inadequate evidence of a prevailing market rate for a particular service, the district court is considered an expert on the question of reasonable fees and can consider its own knowledge and experience without additional pleadings or a hearing
Holding that an across-the-board percentage reduction in attorney fees is appropriate so long as the court provides a “concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the reduction”
Holding that copyright infringement suit against publisher of advocacy campaign newsletter advertising illegal de-scrambling devices does not violate First Amendment
Finding that "[i]n the face of two plausible interpretations of evidence submitted to demonstrate a contested issue, the district court is not at liberty to accept one construction of the evidence and reject the other without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing"
Prohibiting statutory damages and attorney's fees if the work is not registered before infringement commences, or within three months of the work's first publication