Jurisdiction; The Declaratory Judgment Act; The Copyright Act; 28 USC § 1338(a); Cases “arising under” copyright law; The Copyright Act’s “fair use” exception; Whether there was a “federal question”; Whether plaintiff established “a substantial controversy” to support a declaratory judgment

The court held that the district court correctly ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff-Stovall’s action seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that releasing a school survey to her under the Kentucky Open Records Act would qualify for the Copyright Act’s fair-use exception. Her case did not “arise under” copyright law. When Stovall sought a copy of the mental health survey that her child’s high school intended to administer to its students, defendants allowed her to view the survey but would not allow her to make a copy, “claiming that the public-records law did not extend to copyrighted materials.” Instead of pursuing her state remedies, she sought a federal declaratory judgment that the fair-use exception in copyright law covered her request. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed her case. On appeal, the court stated that the issue was whether the Copyright Act supplied “an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Federal courts have “exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases ‘arising under’ copyright law.” The court noted that “three categories of cases ‘arise under’ copyright law.” It concluded that the Copyright Act did not create Stovall’s cause of action. Rather, her complaint asserted that her entitlement to copies of the survey came from a state statute. “A state-law cause of action does not by itself establish a federal question.” Second, her state-law claim did “not ‘necessarily raise’ a copyright law question.” The court noted that federal “‘copyright law is not an essential element of [Stovall’s open-records] claim.” Third, the court found that because her “public-records claim does not resemble an infringement claim, it does not belong in federal court.” It rejected her arguments to the contrary, noting among other things that “whether a state-law claim raises a ‘substantial question’ of federal law is a necessary but not a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction.” As to her federal preemption argument, although federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright-infringement actions, state courts may consider “incidental copyright questions.” The court also held that the possibility of a lawsuit by the survey’s publisher did “nothing to show that her complaint establishes a federal question” and did “not create the kind of ‘substantial controversy’ needed to establish standing.” Affirmed.