Jump to content

User:Absentminded/Draft of copyright cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary
Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 1834 5 - 2 Substantive Copyrightability/Common law Copyright/Formalities Majority:
McLean
Dissent: 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 Majority:
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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Miller (unanimous)
Extended copyright protection to photography.
Banks v. Manchester 128 U.S. 244 1888 9 - 0 Substantive Copyrightability of laws Majority:
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 Majority:
Holmes
Dissent: 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 Majority:
Holmes (unanimous)
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company 209 U.S. 1 1908 9 - 0 Substantive Public performance right in music Majority:
Day (unanimous)
Concurrence: 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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Holmes (unanimous)
Ferris v. Frohman 223 U.S. 424 1912 9 - 0 Substantive Publication and Public Performance Majority:
Hughes (unanimous)
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell 229 U.S. 1 1913 5 - 4 Non-Copyright Intersection of patents and first-sale doctrine Majority:
Day
Dissent: 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 Majority:
Holmes (unanimous)
Copyright Act of 1909
International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215 1918 5 - 3 Non-Copyright Hot News Majority:
Pitney
Dissent: 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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Hughes (unanimous)
Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson 306 U.S. 30 1938 6 - 3 Substantive Formalities Majority:
McReynolds
Dissent: 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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Frankfurter (unanimous)
Copyright Act of 1909
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 334 U.S. 131 1948 7 - 1 Non-Copyright Antitrust Majority:
Douglas
Dissent: 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) Majority:
Jackson
Dissent: 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 Majority:
Reed
Dissent:
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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Stewart
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Burger
Dissent:
Douglas (Brennan, Blackmun), Marshall (Brennan, Blackmun)
Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting 415 U.S. 394 1974 6 - 3 Substantive Public performance of broadcast television Majority:
[[Potter Stewart|
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Stewart
Dissent:
Burger (Douglas)
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
White
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Stevens
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Stevens
Dissent:
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 Majority:
O'Connor
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Blackmun
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Marshall (unanimous)
Copyright Act of 1976 Works for hire.
Stewart v. Abend 495 U.S. 207 1990 6 - 3 Substantive Derivative works Majority:
O'Connor
Dissent:
Stevens (Rehnquist, Scalia)
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
O'Connor
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
Rehnquist
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
Souter
Concurrence:
Kennedy
Copyright Act of 1976 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 Majority:
Stevens
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
Thomas
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
Ginsburg
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Ginsburg
Dissent:
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 Majority:
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 Majority:
Souter (unanimous)
Concurrence:
Ginsburg (Rehnquist, Kennedy), Breyer (Stevens, O'Connor)
Copyright Act of 1976 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 Majority:
Thomas
Concurrence:
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 Majority:
Ginsburg
Dissent:
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 Majority:
Breyer
Dissent:
Ginsburg (Scalia (in part)), Kennedy)
Concurrence:
Kagan (Alito)
Copyright Act of 1976 The first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas.