On April 4, 2014, in Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the US District Court for the Southern District of New York's determination that the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations did not bar a photographer's infringement claims because, exercising reasonable diligence, he did not discover the infringements until fewer than three years prior to bringing suit (Nos. 12–4874–cv(L), 12–5069–cv(XAP), (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2014)).

Louis Psihoyos is a professional photographer who created eight photographs that publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. published, without permission, in textbooks from 2005 to 2009. In November 2010, Wiley sought a retroactive license for some of the photographs. In response, Psihoyos requested that Wiley identify any other photographs it had published without permission. In March 2011, Psihoyos filed a complaint alleging that Wiley had infringed his copyright in eight photographs.

In August 2011, after discovery was complete, Wiley moved for summary judgment on two grounds, arguing that:

The district court partially granted Wiley's motion for summary judgment, holding that:

The remaining infringement claims went to a jury trial. The jury found partial willful infringement, and awarded damages. Wiley moved for remittitur or a new trial, which the district court denied.

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court. It held that copyright infringement claims do not accrue until actual or constructive discovery of the relevant infringement, rejecting Wiley's argument that a claim should accrue at the time of the infringement. Therefore, because Psihoyos filed suit well within three years after discovering the infringements, the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations did not bar any of Psihoyos's claims. The court noted that with this decision it joins every Circuit Court to consider the issue in holding that copyright infringement claims accrue upon actual or constructive discovery of the relevant infringement. This rule is commonly known as the "discovery rule."

The Second Circuit also considered Psihoyos's argument that the district court improperly dismissed some of his infringement claims for failure to comply with the Copyright Act's requirement of pre-suit registration. Psihoyos had submitted applications for registration after discovery had closed, and argued on appeal that his applications satisfied the registration requirement. The Second Circuit acknowledged a split among the circuits regarding whether a pending application satisfied this requirement, but declined to consider the issue. Instead, it affirmed the district court's decision that Psihoyos's failure to even apply for registration until after discovery had closed failed to satisfy the registration requirement.

The Second Circuit also denied Wiley's appeal of the district court's refusal to grant remittitur. The Second Circuit explained that there does not need to be a direct correlation between statutory damages and actual damages, and district courts have wide discretion to consider a number of factors. Because the district court concluded that several factors explained the jury's award, the jury's award stood.