Black Eyed Peas and Code Lyoko: The French Supreme Court Clarifies the Limitation Period for Copyright Infringement in Music

Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court), First Civil Chamber – Section Formation, 3 September 2025, No. 23-18.669

In music copyright litigation, few issues are as decisive – and as technical – as the limitation period.

In a significant ruling on 3 September 2025, the French Cour de cassation held that when infringement results from an ongoing exploitation of the protected work, each act of reproduction, communication to the public or commercial distribution constitutes an autonomous infringement that triggers a new five-year limitation period.

The case, which attracted considerable attention in the music industry, opposed the creators of the theme song of the animated series Code Lyoko to the world-famous group Black Eyed Peas.

‍

1.  Background: a cross-border musical dispute

The French composers Mr J. and Mr S., later joined by Mr W., are the authors and co-publishers of the song “Un monde sans danger”, created for the TV series Code Lyoko and registered with SACEM in 2004.

They alleged that the Black Eyed Peas had unlawfully incorporated distinctive elements of that work into the song “Whenever”, included in the group’s album The Beginning, first released in 2010.

Convinced of the infringement, they sent a formal notice on 30 December 2011 to the songwriters, their publishers (BMG, EMI), the record producer (Interscope) and the French distributor (Universal).

However, the composers only brought a copyright infringement action in France on 6 June 2018, arguing that the infringing exploitation had continued well beyond the initial release date, in particular through:

• the continued sale of the album in April 2018, and
• the availability of the track on download platforms in March 2018.

‍

2.  The Court of Appeal’s position: a single limitation period

The Paris Court of Appeal (17 May 2023) found the action time-barred under Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, which sets a five-year period for personal actions starting on the day when the right-holder became aware, or should have become aware, of the facts giving rise to the action.

For the appellate judges, the 2011 formal notice marked the starting point of the limitation period, as the right-holders then had knowledge of the alleged infringement.

Subsequent commercialisation and digital availability of the track were regarded merely as the “normal continuation” of the original exploitation initiated in 2010.

‍

3.  The Supreme Court’s ruling: each act of exploitation triggers a new period

The Cour de cassation quashed the appellate decision.

Referring to Article 2224 Civil Code, it held that:

“Where copyright infringement results from a succession of distinct acts – whether acts of reproduction, communication to the public or distribution – the limitation period runs separately for each such act from the day on which the right-holder knew or ought to have known of that act.”

In practical terms, the initial release of the album in 2010 does not exhaust the cause of action: the subsequent sales and online availability documented in 2018 constitute new and distinct acts of infringement, each triggering its own five-year limitation period.

Accordingly, the action brought on 6 June 2018 was not time-barred in respect of these later acts.

The case was remitted to a differently composed chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal for further consideration.

‍

4.  Practical implications for the music and creative industries

This ruling is of particular importance for the music sector and, more broadly, for all creative industries whose works are exploited over extended periods and across multiple channels.

• Autonomy of infringing acts: ongoing commercialisation – including continued online availability, reissues, compilations, or resale of physical copies – constitutes separate infringements, each opening a fresh five-year period.
• Stronger protection for right-holders: they are not barred from suing for later acts of infringement simply because they were aware of the initial act years earlier.
• Need for robust evidence: right-holders must carefully document each recent act of reproduction or communication – e.g., dated screenshots and captures, bailiff’s reports, SACEM data, platform reporting – to prove that these acts fall within the limitation period.
• Ongoing diligence for exploiters: producers, distributors and platforms cannot rely on the mere passage of time since the initial release; so long as the infringing work remains available, the limitation clock may be re-set by each new act of exploitation.

‍

Read the judgment on the Cour de cassation’s official website