Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles
| Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 27, 1923 Decided March 12, 1923 | |
| Full case name | Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles |
| Citations | 261 U.S. 326 (more) 43 S. Ct. 365; 67 L. Ed. 680 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 279 F. 1018 (2d Cir. 1922) |
| Holding | |
| The statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Holmes, joined by a unanimous court |
| Laws applied | |
| Copyright Act of 1909 | |
Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive.[1]
This case was reaffirmed in Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc..[2]
References
External links
- Text of Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923) is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |