List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law
This is an incomplete list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the area of copyright law.
| 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 | Hotels & restaurants that perform music must compensate composers, even if the venue is not separately charging patrons to hear the music. |
| 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 | State government taxation of copyright royalties | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | States may tax copyright royalties, as they can patent royalties, because even though copyrights & patents are granted by the federal government, they are still private property subject to taxation. | |
| 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 latitude 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) | ||
| Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. | 1960 | 5 - 4 | Substantive | Duration | ||||
| 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: 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. |
| Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. | 572 U.S. ____ | 2014 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Laches | Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer (Roberts, Kennedy) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The laches defense is not available in copyright infringement cases. |
| American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. | 573 U.S. ____ | 2014 | 6 - 3 | Substantive | Public performance | Majority: Breyer Dissent: Scalia (Thomas, Alito) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Aereo's subscription service allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices; the live viewing was deemed to be an infringing "retransmission" within the meaning of the public performance right. |
Further research
- Raza Panjwani, "Supreme Court Copyright Index" (last visited May 26, 2014) - A website of Supreme Court copyright jurisprudence, organized by justice
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court patent case law
- List of United States Supreme Court trademark case law
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 3/9/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.