Jump to content

User:Absentminded/Draft of copyright cases: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
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/222/55.htm 334 U.S. 131]||1948||7 - 1||Non-Copyright||Antitrust||[[William O. Douglas|Douglas]]||[[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]] (in part)||||||
| ''[[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/33/591.html 344 U.S. 227]||1952||7 - 2||Procedural||Election of remedies (Statutory Damages)||[[Robert H. Jackson|Jackson]]||[[Hugo Black|Black]] ([[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]])||||||Provided wide latitude to judges when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case.
| ''[[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 applied art.
| ''[[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||Anti-trust and copyright collective rights organizations||[[Byron White|White]]||[[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]||||||
| ''[[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]])||||||The 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
| ''[[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.