## Facts

- John C. Fogerty wrote “Run Through the Jungle” and later “The Old Man Down the Road,” both in a similar “swamp rock” style.
- Fantasy, Inc. owned the copyright in “Run Through the Jungle.”
- Fantasy sued Fogerty for copyright infringement, alleging the later song copied protected elements of the earlier song.
- A jury returned a verdict for Fogerty, finding no infringement.
- Fogerty sought attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505; under then-controlling circuit precedent, the district court denied fees because Fantasy’s suit was not frivolous and was not brought in bad faith, and that denial was affirmed.
- After the Supreme Court rejected the asymmetric standard and remanded, the district court awarded Fogerty $1,347,519.15 in attorney’s fees but denied prejudgment interest.
- Fantasy appealed the fee award (authority and amount), and Fogerty cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether § 505 permits awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing copyright defendant without a finding that the plaintiff acted culpably (e.g., bad faith or frivolousness).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding $1,347,519.15 in attorney’s fees.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying prejudgment interest on the fee award.

## Decision

- The court held that, after the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 505, a district court may award fees to a prevailing defendant without requiring any finding of plaintiff culpability.
- The court affirmed the fee award, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Fogerty’s successful defense furthered the purposes of the Copyright Act.
- The court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest, holding that the decision was within the district court’s equitable discretion.
- The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants are eligible for attorney’s fees on an evenhanded basis.
- A fee award to a prevailing defendant is not conditioned on a showing that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, brought in bad faith, or otherwise culpable.
- The fee decision is equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion; courts may consider whether the award serves the purposes of the Copyright Act, including protecting legitimate, non-infringing creative expression from being chilled by overreaching enforcement.
- Prejudgment interest on a § 505 fee award is also committed to the district court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a substantial attorney’s fee award to a prevailing copyright defendant under § 505 without requiring proof that the plaintiff acted in bad faith or pursued a frivolous claim, and it also upheld the district court’s refusal to award prejudgment interest.


Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 1996)