A landmark ruling clarifies the limitation period in copyright infringement
Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 3 September 2025, No. 23-18.669
Limitation is a cornerstone of French law, inherited from Roman law and grounded in the ideas of legal certainty and the right to be forgotten.
It extinguishes rights by the mere passage of time and rests on two elements:
- a duration, and
- a starting point.
The limitation period varies depending on the nature of the right and the applicable legal text.
Under Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, the civil limitation period is five years:
“Actions shall be time-barred five years from the day on which the holder of a right knew or should have known the facts enabling them to exercise it.”
In copyright infringement, the challenge lies in determining the starting point of this period — the moment from which the limitation begins to run.
The Court of Appeal’s position: a “global” limitation period
Background
- On 10 February 2004, three French composers filed a musical work with SACEM titled Un monde sans danger, used as the theme song for the animated series Code Lyoko.
- In 2010, the American group The Black Eyed Peas released the album The Beginning, which included the song Whenever. The French composers claimed that Whenever infringed their original work.
- On 30 December 2011, they sent a formal notice to the American artists, their publishers, and distributors, demanding compensation for the alleged infringement of Un monde sans danger and its English adaptation A World Without Danger.
- Receiving no satisfactory response, they filed a lawsuit on 6 June 2018 before the Paris Judicial Court, alleging copyright infringement. At that time, Whenever remained available on streaming platforms, and The Beginning was still being sold.
The court rejected their claims on 9 July 2021, leading the composers to appeal on 20 August 2021.
The Paris Court of Appeal’s ruling
(17 May 2023)
The Court of Appeal declared the action inadmissible, holding that it was time-barred.
Applying Article 2224 of the Civil Code, it reasoned that the five-year period began when the plaintiffs first became aware of the infringing act — in 2011 — and had therefore expired by 2018.
According to the Court, the continued presence of the song on streaming platforms and in distribution channels merely extended the initial infringing act and did not restart the limitation period.
In other words, the initial act of reproduction in 2010 triggered a single five-year limitation period covering the entire course of exploitation.
The Court of Cassation’s decision: each act is autonomous
The Court of Cassation overturned the appellate decision, finding that the Court had misinterpreted Article 2224 of the Civil Code.
The First Civil Chamber held that:
“Where infringement results from a succession of distinct acts — whether of reproduction, performance, or distribution — and not from a single act with continuing effects, the limitation period runs separately for each act, from the day on which the right holder knew or should have known of it.”
Each act of infringement — even if part of a continuous exploitation — therefore constitutes a distinct cause of action, giving rise to its own limitation period.
Accordingly, the continued distribution of The Beginning between 2011 and 2018 and the ongoing availability of Whenever on streaming platforms were new and independent infringing acts, each triggering a new five-year period.
The case was remitted to the Paris Court of Appeal, sitting in a different composition.
Key takeaways
LThis decision of the Court of Cassation has significant implications:
- Each infringing act must be assessed individually for limitation purposes.
- The protection of authors’ rights is reinforced — allowing actions against ongoing or repeated infringements.
- Publishers and distributors now face increased obligations, as each act of reproduction, distribution, or online dissemination may constitute a separate infringement.
In short, the Court extends the ability of authors to act over time, recognizing that ongoing commercial exploitation may give rise to new claims.
The Court nonetheless distinguished between:
“a succession of distinct acts”
and
“a single act of the same nature continuing over time.”
The boundary between these two notions remains nuanced, particularly when the effects of a single act continue to produce economic consequences long after the original infringement.
October 2025
Contributing authors
Gwendal Barbaut
Attorney-at-Law | Partner
Martin Huguet
Legal Intern