User:Absentminded/Draft of copyright cases: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Absentminded (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Absentminded (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ''[[Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/229/1.html 229 U.S. 1]||1913||5 - 4||Non-Copyright||Intersection of patents and [[First-sale doctrine|first-sale doctrine]]||[[William R. Day|Day]]||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] ([[Joseph McKenna|McKenna]], [[Horace Harmon Lurton|Lurton]], [[Willis Van Devanter|Van Devanter]])||||||Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending rightsholders' rights beyond statute. Rights of copyright holder regarding “use” of copyrighted works. |
| ''[[Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/229/1.html 229 U.S. 1]||1913||5 - 4||Non-Copyright||Intersection of patents and [[First-sale doctrine|first-sale doctrine]]||[[William R. Day|Day]]||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] ([[Joseph McKenna|McKenna]], [[Horace Harmon Lurton|Lurton]], [[Willis Van Devanter|Van Devanter]])||||||Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending rightsholders' rights beyond statute. Rights of copyright holder regarding “use” of copyrighted works. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Herbert v. Shanley Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/242/591.html 242 U.S. 591]||1917||9 - 0||Substantive||Public performance of live music in business establishments||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
| ''[[Herbert v. Shanley Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/242/591.html 242 U.S. 591]||1917||9 - 0||Substantive||Public performance of live music in business establishments||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]|| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[International News Service v. Associated Press]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/248/215.html 248 U.S. 215]||1918||5 - 3||Non-Copyright||Hot News||[[Mahlon Pitney|Pitney]]||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] ([[Joseph McKenna|McKenna]]), [[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]]|||||| |
| ''[[International News Service v. Associated Press]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/248/215.html 248 U.S. 215]||1918||5 - 3||Non-Copyright||Hot News||[[Mahlon Pitney|Pitney]]||[[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.|Holmes]] ([[Joseph McKenna|McKenna]]), [[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]]|||||| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/283/191.html 283 U.S. 191]||1931||9 - 0||Substantive||Public performance right in radio broadcasts in business establishments||[[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]] (unanimous)|||||||| A hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally-controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction." NB: Gene Buck, plaintiff, was president of ASCAP. |
| ''[[Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/283/191.html 283 U.S. 191]||1931||9 - 0||Substantive||Public performance right in radio broadcasts in business establishments||[[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]|| A hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally-controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction." NB: Gene Buck, plaintiff, was president of ASCAP. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Fox Film Corp v. Doyal]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/286/123.html 286 U.S. 123]||1932||9 - 0||Substantive||Taxation of royalties||[[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
| ''[[Fox Film Corp v. Doyal]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/286/123.html 286 U.S. 123]||1932||9 - 0||Substantive||Taxation of royalties||[[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/306/30.htm 306 U.S. 30]||1938||6 - 3||Substantive||Formalities||[[James Clark McReynolds|McReynolds]]||[[Hugo Black|Black]] ([[Owen Roberts|O. Roberts]], [[Stanley Forman Reed|Reed]])|||||| |
| ''[[Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/306/30.htm 306 U.S. 30]||1938||6 - 3||Substantive||Formalities||[[James Clark McReynolds|McReynolds]]||[[Hugo Black|Black]] ([[Owen Roberts|O. Roberts]], [[Stanley Forman Reed|Reed]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]||The 1909 Act's deposit requirement did not require immediate deposit, or deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/309/390.html 309 U.S. 390]||1940||8 - 0||Procedural||Damages||[[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
| ''[[Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/309/390.html 309 U.S. 390]||1940||8 - 0||Procedural||Damages||[[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]||In the case of an unauthorized adaptation, court may elect to award only a portion of an infringer's profits to the plaintiff. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/318/643.html 318 U.S. 643]||1943||9 - 0||Substantive||Renewal terms and assignment||[[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
| ''[[Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/318/643.html 318 U.S. 643]||1943||9 - 0||Substantive||Renewal terms and assignment||[[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]|| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/ |
| ''[[United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/334/131.htm 334 U.S. 131]||1948||7 - 1||Non-Copyright||Antitrust||[[William O. Douglas|Douglas]]||[[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]] (in part)||||[[Sherman Antitrust Act]]|| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/ |
| ''[[F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/334/227.html 344 U.S. 227]||1952||7 - 2||Procedural||Election of remedies (Statutory Damages)||[[Robert H. Jackson|Jackson]]||[[Hugo Black|Black]] ([[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]||Court may grant statutory damages, even when infringer proves its gross profits were less than the statutory award. Judges granted wide lattitude when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Mazer v. Stein]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/201.html 347 U.S. 201]||1954||7 - 2||Substantive||Copyrightability of sculpture and [[Idea–expression divide|Idea/Expression Dichotomy]]||[[Stanley Forman Reed|Reed]]||[[William O. Douglas|Douglas]] ([[Hugo Black|Black]])||||||Extended copyright protection to |
| ''[[Mazer v. Stein]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/347/201.html 347 U.S. 201]||1954||7 - 2||Substantive||Copyrightability of sculpture and [[Idea–expression divide|Idea/Expression Dichotomy]]||[[Stanley Forman Reed|Reed]]||[[William O. Douglas|Douglas]] ([[Hugo Black|Black]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]||Extended copyright protection to functional art. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[De Sylva v. Ballentine]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/351/570.html 351 U.S. 570]||1956||9 - 0||Substantive||Renewal terms and beneficiaries||[[John Marshall Harlan II|Harlan II]] (unanimous)|||||||| |
| ''[[De Sylva v. Ballentine]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/351/570.html 351 U.S. 570]||1956||9 - 0||Substantive||Renewal terms and beneficiaries||[[John Marshall Harlan II|Harlan II]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1909]]|| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/356/43.html 356 U.S. 43]||1958||4 - 4||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in parody||||||||||aff'd 4-4 sub. nom., Benny v. Loew's, 239 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956) |
| ''[[Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/356/43.html 356 U.S. 43]||1958||4 - 4||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in parody||||||||||aff'd 4-4 sub. nom., Benny v. Loew's, 239 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956) |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| ''[[Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/320/376.html 420 U.S. 376]||1976||4 - 4||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in photocopies||||||||||aff'd by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975) |
| ''[[Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/320/376.html 420 U.S. 376]||1976||4 - 4||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in photocopies||||||||||aff'd by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975) |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting System]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/441/1.htm 441 U.S. 1]||1979||8 - 1||Non-Copyright|| |
| ''[[Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting System]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/441/1.htm 441 U.S. 1]||1979||8 - 1||Non-Copyright||Antitrust and copyright collective rights organizations||[[Byron White|White]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||||[[Sherman Antitrust Act]]|| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html 464 U.S. 417]||1984||5 - 4||Substantive||[[Secondary liability]] and [[Fair use|fair use]] in home recordings||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]] ([[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]], [[Lewis F. Powell, Jr.|Powell]], [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]])||||||The Betamax Case |
| ''[[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html 464 U.S. 417]||1984||5 - 4||Substantive||[[Secondary liability]] and [[Fair use|fair use]] in home recordings||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]] ([[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]], [[Lewis F. Powell, Jr.|Powell]], [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||The Betamax Case |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/469/153.html 469 U.S. 153]||1985||5 - 4||Substantive||Termination||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||[[Byron White|White]] ([[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Brennan]], [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]], [[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]])||||||Assignment of royalties under the Copyright Act |
| ''[[Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/469/153.html 469 U.S. 153]||1985||5 - 4||Substantive||Termination||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||[[Byron White|White]] ([[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Brennan]], [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]], [[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Assignment of royalties under the Copyright Act |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/471/539.html 471 U.S. 539]||1985||6 - 3||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in excerpts||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||[[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Brennan]] ([[Byron White|White]], [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]])||||||The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative [[Fair use]]. |
| ''[[Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/471/539.html 471 U.S. 539]||1985||6 - 3||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in excerpts||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||[[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Brennan]] ([[Byron White|White]], [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative [[Fair use]]. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Dowling. v. United States]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/207.html 473 U.S. 207]||1985||6 - 3||Non-Copyright||Criminal law impact of infringement||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]]||[[Lewis F. Powell, Jr.|Powell]] ([[Warren E. Burger|Burger]], [[Byron White|White]])||||||Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. |
| ''[[Dowling v. United States (1985)|Dowling. v. United States]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/207.html 473 U.S. 207]||1985||6 - 3||Non-Copyright||Criminal law impact of infringement||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]]||[[Lewis F. Powell, Jr.|Powell]] ([[Warren E. Burger|Burger]], [[Byron White|White]])||||||Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/490/730.html 490 U.S. 730]||1989||9 - 0||Substantive||Work-made-for-hire||[[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]] (unanimous)||||||||Works for hire. |
| ''[[Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/490/730.html 490 U.S. 730]||1989||9 - 0||Substantive||Work-made-for-hire||[[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]] (unanimous)||||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Works for hire. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Stewart v. Abend]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/495/207.html 495 U.S. 207]||1990||6 - 3||Substantive||[[Derivative work|Derivative works]]||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]] ([[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]])||[[Byron White|White]]||||Rights of the successor of a copyright interest |
| ''[[Stewart v. Abend]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/495/207.html 495 U.S. 207]||1990||6 - 3||Substantive||[[Derivative work|Derivative works]]||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]] ([[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]])||[[Byron White|White]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Rights of the successor of a copyright interest |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html 499 U.S. 340]||1991||9 - 0||Substantive||Copyrightability of Facts and [[Idea–expression divide|Idea/Expression Dichotomy]]||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]]||||Affirmed the need for a minimal amount of creativity before a work is copyrightable. "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright. |
| ''[[Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html 499 U.S. 340]||1991||9 - 0||Substantive||Copyrightability of Facts and [[Idea–expression divide|Idea/Expression Dichotomy]]||[[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]||||[[Harry Blackmun|Blackmun]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Affirmed the need for a minimal amount of creativity before a work is copyrightable. "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/510/517.html 510 U.S. 517]||1994||9 - 0||Procedural||Attorneys Fees||[[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]]||||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||||Attorney's fees in copyright litigation may be awarded to successful defendants, as well as to successful plaintiffs |
| ''[[Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/510/517.html 510 U.S. 517]||1994||9 - 0||Procedural||Attorneys Fees||[[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]]||||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Attorney's fees in copyright litigation may be awarded to successful defendants, as well as to successful plaintiffs |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/510/569.html 510 U.S. 569]||1994||9 - 0||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in Commercial Parody||[[David Souter|Souter]]||||[[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]]||||Commercial parody can be [[fair use]]. |
| ''[[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/510/569.html 510 U.S. 569]||1994||9 - 0||Substantive||[[Fair use]] in Commercial Parody||[[David Souter|Souter]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||[[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]]||||Commercial parody can be [[fair use]]. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/516/233.html 516 U.S. 233]||1995||4 - 4||Substantive||Copyrightability of software program interfaces||||||||||Scope of software copyrights. |
| ''[[Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/516/233.html 516 U.S. 233]||1995||4 - 4||Substantive||Copyrightability of software program interfaces||||||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Scope of software copyrights. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/135.html 523 U.S. 135]||1998||9 - 0||Substantive||Reimportation||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]] applies to reimported goods |
| ''[[Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/135.html 523 U.S. 135]||1998||9 - 0||Substantive||Reimportation||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]] applies to reimported goods |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/340.html 523 U.S. 340]||1998||9 - 0||Procedural||Right to Jury Trial on Statutory Damages||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||||[[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]]||||Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in a copyright infringement case |
| ''[[Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/340.html 523 U.S. 340]||1998||9 - 0||Procedural||Right to Jury Trial on Statutory Damages||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||||[[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]]||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||[[Seventh Amendment]] right to jury trial in a copyright infringement case |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[New York Times Co. v. Tasini]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/533/483.html 533 U.S. 483]||2001||7 - 2||Substantive||Collective works||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]] ([[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]])||||||Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work. |
| ''[[New York Times Co. v. Tasini]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/533/483.html 533 U.S. 483]||2001||7 - 2||Substantive||Collective works||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]] ([[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/537/186.html 537 U.S. 186]||2003||7 - 2||Substantive||Term Extension||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]]||||||Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited. |
| ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/537/186.html 537 U.S. 186]||2003||7 - 2||Substantive||Term Extension||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]]||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Challenge to [[Copyright Term Extension Act]] of 1998; held Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/23.html 539 U.S. 23]||2003||8 - 0||Non-Copyright||Intersection of TM law with public domain works||[[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] (unanimous)||||||||Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work. |
| ''[[Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/23.html 539 U.S. 23]||2003||8 - 0||Non-Copyright||Intersection of TM law with public domain works||[[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] (unanimous)||||||[[Lanham Act]]||Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/545/913.html 545 U.S. 913]||2005||9 - 0||Substantive||[[Secondary liability]]||[[David Souter|Souter]] (unanimous)||||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]]), [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]] ([[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]])||||Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". |
| ''[[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/545/913.html 545 U.S. 913]||2005||9 - 0||Substantive||[[Secondary liability]]||[[David Souter|Souter]] (unanimous)||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]]), [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]] ([[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]])||||Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/559/154.html 559 U.S. 154]||2010||8 - 0||Procedural||Registration||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]])||||Settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database |
| ''[[Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/559/154.html 559 U.S. 154]||2010||8 - 0||Procedural||Registration||[[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]]||||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]], [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]])||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/08-1423.html 562 U.S. ___]||2010||4 - 4||Substantive||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]]||||||||||aff'g 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) |
| ''[[Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/08-1423.html 562 U.S. ___]||2010||4 - 4||Substantive||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]]||||||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||aff'g 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Golan v. Holder]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/10-545.html 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 873]||2012||6 - 2||Substantive||Restoration of copyright in public domain works||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]] ([[Samuel Alito|Alito]])|||||| |
| ''[[Golan v. Holder]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/10-545.html 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 873]||2012||6 - 2||Substantive||Restoration of copyright in public domain works||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]||[[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]] ([[Samuel Alito|Alito]])||||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||Challenge to [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]]; held Constitution gives broad discretion to Congress to decide how best to promote the "progress of science and the useful arts", including restoring copyright in public domain works. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| ''[[Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/11-697.html 568 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1351]||2013||6 - 3||Substantive||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]]||[[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]]||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] (in part)), [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]])||[[Elena Kagan|Kagan]] ([[Samuel Alito|Alito]])||||The [[First-sale doctrine|first-sale doctrine]] applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas. |
| ''[[Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]]''||[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/11-697.html 568 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1351]||2013||6 - 3||Substantive||[[First-sale doctrine|First-sale doctrine]]||[[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]]||[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] ([[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] (in part)), [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]])||[[Elena Kagan|Kagan]] ([[Samuel Alito|Alito]])||[[Copyright Act of 1976]]||The [[First-sale doctrine|first-sale doctrine]] applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas. |
||
|} |
|} |
Revision as of 00:18, 10 March 2014
Case | Citation | Year | Vote | Classification | Subject Matter | Opinions | Dissents (Joined by) | Concurrences (Joined by) | Statute Interpreted | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wheaton v. Peters | 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 | 1834 | 5 - 2 | Substantive | Copyrightability/Common law Copyright/Formalities | McLean | Thompson, Baldwin | There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright. | ||
Trade-Mark Cases | 100 U.S. 82 | 1879 | 9 - 0 | Non-Copyright | Constitutional basis for Trademark regulation | Miller (unanimous) | Copyright Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks | |||
Baker v. Selden | 101 U.S. 99 | 1879 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Idea/Expression Dichotomy | Bradley (unanimous) | Idea-expression divide; differences between copyright & patent law | |||
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony | 111 U.S. 53 | 1884 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Copyrightability of photography | Miller (unanimous) | Extended copyright protection to photography. | |||
Banks v. Manchester | 128 U.S. 244 | 1888 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Copyrightability of laws | Blatchford (unanimous) | No copyright in state Supreme Court opinions. | |||
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company | 188 U.S. 239 | 1903 | 7 - 2 | Substantive | Copyrightability of commercial art | Holmes | Harlan (McKenna) | Copyright protection of illustrations made for advertisements | ||
United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co. | 208 U.S. 260 | 1908 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Formalities | Holmes (unanimous) | ||||
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company | 209 U.S. 1 | 1908 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Public performance right in music | Day (unanimous) | Holmes | Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright. | ||
Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus | 210 U.S. 339 | 1908 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | First-sale doctrine | Day (unanimous) | No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. | |||
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. | 222 U.S. 55 | 1911 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Derivative works and Secondary liability | Holmes (unanimous) | ||||
Ferris v. Frohman | 223 U.S. 424 | 1912 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Publication and Public Performance | Hughes (unanimous) | ||||
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell | 229 U.S. 1 | 1913 | 5 - 4 | Non-Copyright | Intersection of patents and first-sale doctrine | Day | Holmes (McKenna, Lurton, Van Devanter) | Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending rightsholders' rights beyond statute. Rights of copyright holder regarding “use” of copyrighted works. | ||
Herbert v. Shanley Co. | 242 U.S. 591 | 1917 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Public performance of live music in business establishments | Holmes (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | |||
International News Service v. Associated Press | 248 U.S. 215 | 1918 | 5 - 3 | Non-Copyright | Hot News | Pitney | Holmes (McKenna), Brandeis | |||
Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. | 283 U.S. 191 | 1931 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Public performance right in radio broadcasts in business establishments | Brandeis (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | A hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally-controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction." NB: Gene Buck, plaintiff, was president of ASCAP. | ||
Fox Film Corp v. Doyal | 286 U.S. 123 | 1932 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Taxation of royalties | Hughes (unanimous) | ||||
Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson | 306 U.S. 30 | 1938 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Formalities | McReynolds | Black (O. Roberts, Reed) | Copyright Act of 1909 | The 1909 Act's deposit requirement did not require immediate deposit, or deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement | |
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. | 309 U.S. 390 | 1940 | 8 - 0 | Procedural | Damages | Hughes (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | In the case of an unauthorized adaptation, court may elect to award only a portion of an infringer's profits to the plaintiff. | ||
Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons | 318 U.S. 643 | 1943 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Renewal terms and assignment | Frankfurter (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | |||
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. | 334 U.S. 131 | 1948 | 7 - 1 | Non-Copyright | Antitrust | Douglas | Frankfurter (in part) | Sherman Antitrust Act | ||
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. | 344 U.S. 227 | 1952 | 7 - 2 | Procedural | Election of remedies (Statutory Damages) | Jackson | Black (Frankfurter) | Copyright Act of 1909 | Court may grant statutory damages, even when infringer proves its gross profits were less than the statutory award. Judges granted wide lattitude when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case. | |
Mazer v. Stein | 347 U.S. 201 | 1954 | 7 - 2 | Substantive | Copyrightability of sculpture and Idea/Expression Dichotomy | Reed | Douglas (Black) | Copyright Act of 1909 | Extended copyright protection to functional art. | |
De Sylva v. Ballentine | 351 U.S. 570 | 1956 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Renewal terms and beneficiaries | Harlan II (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | |||
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc. | 356 U.S. 43 | 1958 | 4 - 4 | Substantive | Fair use in parody | aff'd 4-4 sub. nom., Benny v. Loew's, 239 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956) | ||||
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. | 392 U.S. 390 | 1968 | 5 - 1 | Substantive | Public performance of broadcast television | Stewart | Fortas | Receiving a television broadcast (of a licensed work) does not constitute a "performance" | ||
Goldstein v. California | 412 U.S. 546 | 1973 | 5 - 4 | Non-Copyright | Federal pre-emption of state criminal copyright law | Burger | Douglas (Brennan, Blackmun), Marshall (Brennan, Blackmun) | |||
Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting | 415 U.S. 394 | 1974 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Public performance of broadcast television | Stewart | Blackmun (in part), Douglas (Burger) | Receiving a television broadcast does not constitute a "performance" | ||
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken | 422 U.S. 151 | 1975 | 7 - 2 | Substantive | Public performance of radio broadcasts in business establishments | Stewart | Burger (Douglas) | Blackmun | Receiving a radio broadcast of a licensed work does not constitute a "performance". This effectively overruled Buck v. Jewel-LaSalle Realty Co. (1931) | |
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States | 420 U.S. 376 | 1976 | 4 - 4 | Substantive | Fair use in photocopies | aff'd by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975) | ||||
Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting System | 441 U.S. 1 | 1979 | 8 - 1 | Non-Copyright | Antitrust and copyright collective rights organizations | White | Stevens | Sherman Antitrust Act | ||
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. | 464 U.S. 417 | 1984 | 5 - 4 | Substantive | Secondary liability and fair use in home recordings | Stevens | Blackmun (Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The Betamax Case | |
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder | 469 U.S. 153 | 1985 | 5 - 4 | Substantive | Termination | Stevens | White (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Assignment of royalties under the Copyright Act | |
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises | 471 U.S. 539 | 1985 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Fair use in excerpts | O'Connor | Brennan (White, Marshall) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative Fair use. | |
Dowling. v. United States | 473 U.S. 207 | 1985 | 6 - 3 | Non-Copyright | Criminal law impact of infringement | Blackmun | Powell (Burger, White) | Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. | ||
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid | 490 U.S. 730 | 1989 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Work-made-for-hire | Marshall (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Works for hire. | ||
Stewart v. Abend | 495 U.S. 207 | 1990 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Derivative works | O'Connor | Stevens (Rehnquist, Scalia) | White | Copyright Act of 1976 | Rights of the successor of a copyright interest |
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. | 499 U.S. 340 | 1991 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Copyrightability of Facts and Idea/Expression Dichotomy | O'Connor | Blackmun | Copyright Act of 1976 | Affirmed the need for a minimal amount of creativity before a work is copyrightable. "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright. | |
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. | 510 U.S. 517 | 1994 | 9 - 0 | Procedural | Attorneys Fees | Rehnquist | Thomas | Copyright Act of 1976 | Attorney's fees in copyright litigation may be awarded to successful defendants, as well as to successful plaintiffs | |
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. | 510 U.S. 569 | 1994 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Fair use in Commercial Parody | Souter | Copyright Act of 1976 | Kennedy | Commercial parody can be fair use. | |
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. | 516 U.S. 233 | 1995 | 4 - 4 | Substantive | Copyrightability of software program interfaces | Copyright Act of 1976 | Scope of software copyrights. | |||
Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc. | 523 U.S. 135 | 1998 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Reimportation | Stevens | Ginsburg | Copyright Act of 1976 | First-sale doctrine applies to reimported goods | |
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. | 523 U.S. 340 | 1998 | 9 - 0 | Procedural | Right to Jury Trial on Statutory Damages | Thomas | Scalia | Copyright Act of 1976 | Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in a copyright infringement case | |
New York Times Co. v. Tasini | 533 U.S. 483 | 2001 | 7 - 2 | Substantive | Collective works | Ginsburg | Stevens (Breyer) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work. | |
Eldred v. Ashcroft | 537 U.S. 186 | 2003 | 7 - 2 | Substantive | Term Extension | Ginsburg | Stevens, Breyer | Copyright Act of 1976 | Challenge to Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998; held Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited. | |
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. | 539 U.S. 23 | 2003 | 8 - 0 | Non-Copyright | Intersection of TM law with public domain works | Scalia (unanimous) | Lanham Act | Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work. | ||
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. | 545 U.S. 913 | 2005 | 9 - 0 | Substantive | Secondary liability | Souter (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Ginsburg (Rehnquist, Kennedy), Breyer (Stevens, O'Connor) | Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". | |
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick | 559 U.S. 154 | 2010 | 8 - 0 | Procedural | Registration | Thomas | Ginsburg (Stevens, Breyer) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database | |
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. | 562 U.S. ___ | 2010 | 4 - 4 | Substantive | First-sale doctrine | Copyright Act of 1976 | aff'g 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) | |||
Golan v. Holder | 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 873 | 2012 | 6 - 2 | Substantive | Restoration of copyright in public domain works | Ginsburg | Breyer (Alito) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Challenge to Uruguay Round Agreements Act; held Constitution gives broad discretion to Congress to decide how best to promote the "progress of science and the useful arts", including restoring copyright in public domain works. | |
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | 568 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1351 | 2013 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | First-sale doctrine | Breyer | Ginsburg (Scalia (in part)), Kennedy) | Kagan (Alito) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas. |