In DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill, what did the court identify as the reason DRK lacked standing?

In DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill, what did the court identify as the reason DRK lacked standing?

• A. The assignment transferred only accrued claims
• B. The assignment transferred exclusive rights
• C. The case lacked subject matter jurisdiction
• D. DRK had a license to sue

Answer: (A)

Standing in copyright disputes requires the plaintiff to own the right to sue for the infringements alleged. The court looked at what the agreement actually transferred and concluded that the assignment moved only accrued claims—that is, DRK could sue for infringements that had already occurred by the assignment date, but it did not transfer the ongoing, future rights to sue for later infringements. Without ownership of those future rights, DRK could not bring claims for post-assignment acts, so it lacked standing. A broader transfer of all rights or a license that includes the authority to sue for future infringements would have given DRK standing.

Standing in copyright disputes requires the plaintiff to own the right to sue for the infringements alleged. The court looked at what the agreement actually transferred and concluded that the assignment moved only accrued claims—that is, DRK could sue for infringements that had already occurred by the assignment date, but it did not transfer the ongoing, future rights to sue for later infringements. Without ownership of those future rights, DRK could not bring claims for post-assignment acts, so it lacked standing. A broader transfer of all rights or a license that includes the authority to sue for future infringements would have given DRK standing.