List of copyright case law 227344 168228610 2007-10-31T02:58:21Z Jayvdb 101140 /* United States */ add Wikisource box to [[w:Wikisource:United States copyright case law]] The following is a list of cases that deal with issues of concern to [[copyright]] in various jurisdictions. Some of these cases are leading English cases as the law of copyright in various [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] jurisdictions developed out of English law while these countries were colonies of the [[British Empire]]. Other cases provide background in areas of copyright law that may be of interest for the legal reasoning or the conclusions they reach. ==Australia== *''[[Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v. Taylor]]'' (1937) 58 CLR 479 [[idea-expression divide]] *''[[Cuisenaire v. Reed]]'' [1963] VR 719 (a literary work cannot be infringed by a three-dimensional reproduction) *''[[Pacific Film Laboratories v. Commissioner of Tax]]'' (1970) 121 CLR 154 [negative right definition] *''[[Elanco v. Mandops]]'' (1979) FSR 46 (instructions on herbicide are a literary device) *''[[Zeccola v. Universal City Studios Inc.]]'' (1982) 46 ALR 189: there is no copyright in the idea of a theme or a story, but there may be a time where a combination of events and characters reaches sufficient complexity as to give rise to dramatic work copyright *''[[Computer Edge Pty Ltd v. Apple Computer Inc]]'' (1986) 161 CLR 171 (test in Exxon for literary work is "not intended to establish a comprehensive or exhasutive definition of literary work for copyright purposes" per Mason and Wilson JJ) *''[[CBS Records v. Gross]]'' (1989) 15 IPR 385 (a cover version of a song can be an original work itself capable of copyright protection) *''[[Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v. Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd]]'' (1990) 17 IPR 417 per Pincus J, what is ''not'' a sculpture *''[[Autodesk v. Dyason (No.2)]]'' (1993) 111 ALR 385 (the [[idea-expression divide]] is the "dominant principle in copyright law" per Mason CJ: "when the expression of any idea is inseparable from its function, it forms part of the idea and is not entitled to the protection of copyright" per Dawson J) *''[[Sega Enterprises Ltd v. Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd]]'' 35 IPR 161 (1997): interactive video games involving computer images fall in the definition of cinematograph film ==Canada== *''[[Muzak Corp. v. CAPAC]]'' [1953] 2 S.C.R. 45 Authorization as infringement. *''[[Canadian Admiral Corp. v. Rediffusion Inc.]]'' [1954] Ex. C.R. 382 performance in public *''[[Cuisenaire v. South West Imports Ltd.]]'' [1968] 1 Ex C.R. 493 *''[[Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd.]]'' (1982) 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105 (Ont. H.C.): [[moral rights]] *''[[Apple Computer Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd.]]'' [1987] copyright in computer programs *''[[DRG Inc. v. Datafile Ltd.]]'' (1987), 18 C.P.R. (3d) 538 *''[[Yumbulul v. Reserve Bank of Australia]]'' (1991) 21 IPR 481: "copyright law does not provide adequate protection of Aboriginal community claims to regulate the reproduction and use of works which are essentially communal in origin" *''[[Prise de Parole Inc. v. Guerin]]'' [1995] F.C.J. No. 1583: Moral rights *''[[Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd.]]'' (1996), 74 C.P.R. (3d) 206 *''[[Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems Inc.]]'' (2002) Ontario *''[[Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc.]]'' [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336 Canadian definition of "reproduction". *''[[Robertson v. Thomson Corp.]]'' (2004) Ont. CA republication of collective works in electronic databases *''[[CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada]]'' 2004 SCC 13 (established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement) *''[[Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers]]'' 2004 SCC 45 (ISPs as common carriers. Status of caches) *''[[BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe]]'' 2005 FCA 193 (privacy rights of filesharers) ==France== *''[[Societe Le Chant du Monde v. Societe Fox Europe and Societe Fox Americaine Twentieth Century]]'' Cour d'appel, Paris, Jan. 13, 1953, D.A. 1954, 16, 80, held in favor of the plaintiffs due to the very strong moral rights regime in France. ==New Zealand== *''[[Green v. Broadcasting Corp of NZ]]'' (1989) APIC 90-590: Privy Council definition of "dramatic works": " a dramatic work must have sufficient unity to be capable of performance" ==United Kingdom== *''[[Millar v. Taylor]]'' (1769) 4 Burr 2303; 98 ER 201 (copyright is a form of [[property]]) *''[[Donaldson v. Beckett]]'' (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 (copyright is not perpetual) *''[[Dick v. Yates]]'' (1881) 18 Ch D 76: a title is not long enough to consistute a literary work *''[[Kenrick v. Lawrence]]'' (1890) L.R. QBD 99 *''[[Hollingrake v. Truswell]]'' [1894] Ch. 420 *''[[Walter v. Lane]]'' (1900) AC 539 ("reporter's copyright") *''[[Corelli v. Grey]]'' (1913) 29 TLR 570 (four reasons for clear objective similarity between works) *''[[University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd.]]'' [1916] 2 Ch. 601 *''[[Re Dickens]]'' (1934) 1 Ch 267 *''[[Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v. Paramount Film Service Ltd]]'' [1934] 1 Ch 593: the ''[[Colonel Bogey]]'' case - infringement of copyright occurs when "a substantial, a vital and an essential part" of a work is copied, per Lord Slesser *''[[Jennings v. Stephens]]'' [1936] Ch. 469 "performance in public" as infringement. *''[[Donahue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd]]'' (1938) Ch 106 [ "[[idea-expression divide]]"] *''[[Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill (Football) Ltd]]'' [1964]1 WLR 273 *''[[LB (Plastics) Ltd v. Swish Products Ltd]]'' [1979] RPC 551 (the basis of copyright protection is that "one man must not be able to appropriate the result of another's labour") *''[[Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International|Exxon Corp v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International]]'' (1981) 3 All ER 241 [Exxon name has no copyright] *''[[Express Newspapers v. News (UK) Ltd]]'' (1990) 18 IPR 201 (confirming ''[[Walter v. Lane]]'') ==United States== {{wikisource|Wikisource:United States copyright case law|United States copyright case law}} Note: if no court name is given, according to convention, the case is from the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts. {{clear}} {| class="wikitable" |- ! Case name !! [[Case citation|Reporter]] !! Court/year !! Subject, important findings |- |''[[Wheaton v. Peters]]'' | 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 || 1834 | There is no such thing as [[common law copyright]] and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright. |- |''[[Baker v. Selden]]'' | 101 U.S. 99 || 1879 | [[Idea-expression divide]]. |- |''[[Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony]]'' |111 U.S. 53 || 1884 | Extended copyright protection to [[photography]]. |- |''[[Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus]]'' |210 U.S. 339 || 1908 | No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. |- |''[[Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell]]'' |229 U.S. 1 || 1913 |Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending holder's rights beyond statute. |- |''[[Macmillan Co. v. King]]'' |223 F. 862 || [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|D.Mass.]] 1914 |Limits of [[fair use]] with respect to an educational context and to summaries. |- |''[[Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co.]]'' |45 F.2d 119 || [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1930 |No copyright for "stock characters". |- |''[[Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox|Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.]]'' |196 Misc. 67, 80 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948), ''aff'd'' 275 A.D. 692, 87 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1949) || 1948–9 |No [[moral rights]] in [[public domain]] works. |- |''[[National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications]]'' |191 F.2d 594 (1951), clarified 198 F.2d 927 (1952) || [[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1951–2 |Derivative works; an author does not forfeit his copyright to a piece of intellectual property if his work is contracted to another who fails to properly copyright works which incorporate the original property (obsoleted by [[Copyright Act of 1976]]). |- |''[[Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.]]'' |329 F. 2d 541 || [[Second Circuit|2d. Cir.]] 1964 |Parody. |- |''[[Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States]]'' |487 F.2d 1345 || [[United States Court of Federal Claims|Ct. Cl.]] 1973 |Libraries' photocopying for research was [[fair use]]. |- |''[[Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman]]'' |669 F.2d 852 || [[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1982 |Copyright on computer programs includes images and sounds as well as the computer code. |- |''[[Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.]]'' |714 F.2d 1240 || [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|3rd Cir.]] 1983 |Computer [[software]] is protected by copyright (affirmed and obsoleted by subsequent legislation). |- |''[[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.]]'' (the "Betamax case") |464 U.S. 417 || 1984 |Products with substantial non-infringing uses ([[video recorder]]s) may be sold even if they can be used illicitly. |- |''[[Dowling v. United States]]'' |473 U.S. 207 || 1985 |Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods. |- |''[[Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises]]'' |471 U.S. 539 || 1985 |The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative fair use. |- |''[[Fisher v. Dees]]'' |794 F.2d 432 || [[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1986 |Parody of song performance is legitimate fair use |- |''[[Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.]]'' |663 F. Supp. 706 || [[Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]] 1987 |Derivative works. |- |''[[Anderson v. Stallone]]'' |11 USPQ2D 1161 || [[C.D. Cal]] 1989 |Derivative works. |- |''[[Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid]]'' |490 U.S. 730 || 1989 |Works for hire. |- |''[[Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation]]'' |758 F. Supp. 1522 || [[S.D.N.Y.]] 1991 |Articles copied for educational use are not necessarily fair use. |- |''[[Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp]]'' |925 F.2d 670, 675-76 || [[Third Circuit|3d Cir.]] 1991 |The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. |- |''[[Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp]]'' |929 F.2d 1147, 1150 || [[Sixth Circuit|6th Cir.]] 1991 |The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the [[Uniform Commercial Code]]. |- |''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]'' |499 U.S. 340 || 1991 |"Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright. |- |''[[Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.]]'' |780 F. Supp. 182 || [[SDNY]] 1991 |Music sampling is generally copyright infringement. |- |''[[Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology]]'' |939 F.2d 91 || [[Third Circuit|3rd Cir.]] 1991 |The need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software is "largely anachronistic.". |- |''[[Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.]]'' |982 F.2d 693 || [[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1992 |"Substantial similarity" is required for copyright infringement to occur. |- |[[Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.]] |780 F. Supp. 1283 || [[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1992 |Consumers may modify purchased [[computer game]]s for their own use. |- |''[[Rogers v. Koons]]'' |960 F.2d 301 || [[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1992 |[[Fair use]] and parody. |- |''[[MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.]]'' |991 F.2d 511 || [[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1993 |[[Random Access Memory|RAM]] ("working memory") copies of [[computer program]]s are governed by copyright. |- |''[[Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.]] |35 F.3d 1435 || [[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1994 |Certain components of computer programs' [[graphical user interface]]s are not copyrightable. |- |''[[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.]]'' |510 U.S. 569 || 1994 |Commercial parody can be [[fair use]]. |- |''[[Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc.]]'' |861 F. Supp. 303 ||[[Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]], 1994 |Interpreting moral rights provisions of U.S. [[Visual Artists Rights Act]] (overturned for other reasons: 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996)). |- |''[[Lotus v. Borland]]'' |49 F.3d 807 ||[[First Circuit|1st Cir.]] 1995 |Software interfaces ''per se'' are "methods of operation" and are not covered by copyright. |- |''[[Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church]]'' |59 F.3d 902, 910 ||[[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 1995 |Renewal rights are not assignable. |- |''[[Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart]]'' |976 Supp. 149, 155 ||[[Eastern District of New York|E.D.N.Y.]] 1997 |The sale of software is the sale of a good. Case was dropped. |- |''[[Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.]]'' |153 F.3d 82 ||[[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 1998 |Jurisdiction with closest association to putative owner applies to determine copyright ownership. |- |''[[Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation]]'' |36 F. Supp. 2d 191 ||[[Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]] 1999 |"Slavish copying" is inherently uncreative and cannot confer copyright. |- |''[[Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.]]'' |194 F.3d 1211 ||[[Eleventh Circuit|11th Cir.]] 1999 |Giving a public speech is not public-domain publication under the 1909 Copyright Act. |- |''[[Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc.]]'' |2000 US Dist. Lexis. 9975 || [[Southern District of Texas|SD Tex.]] 2000 |The [[first-sale doctrine]] applies to [[computer software|software]]. |- |''[[UMG v. MP3.com]]'' |2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761 || [[Southern District of New York|S.D.N.Y.]] 2000 |Distribution of copyrighted music without permission of the copyright holders is infringement even if the downloader already owns a copy of the music. |- |''[[A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]'' |239 F.3d 1004 ||[[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2001 |Knowingly failing to take steps to prevent infringement, while benefiting from said infringement, is grounds for [[contributory infringement]]. Also, users of file-sharing services infringe by both uploading and downloading works without permission. |- |''[[New York Times Company v. Tasini]]'' |533 U.S. 483 ||2001 |Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work. |- |''[[SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc.]]'' |CV 00-04161 DDP (AJWx)||[[Central District of California|C.D.C.A.]] 2001 |The [[first-sale doctrine]] applies to [[computer software|software]] and cannot be waived or taken away through an [[end-user license agreement]]. |- |''[[Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin]]'' |252 F. 3d 1165 ||[[Eleventh Circuit|11th Cir.]] 2001 |Parody and fair use. |- |''[[Universal v. Reimerdes]]'' |273 F.3d 429 ||[[Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] 2001 |Affirmed the anti-circumvention provisions of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. |- |''[[Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Cong. Int'l]]'' |241 F.3d 398, 416 ||[[Fifth Circuit|5th Cir.]] 2001 |A private organization cannot assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become the law.<!-- Is this right? --> |- |''[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation]]'' |280 F.3d 934 ||[[Third Circuit|3d Cir.]] 2002 |Thumbnails and inline linking can be fair use. |- |''[[Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.]]'' |539 U.S. 23 ||2003 |[[Trademark]] cannot preserve rights to a [[public domain]] work. |- |''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' |537 U.S. 186 ||2003 |Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited. |- |''[[CoStar Group v. LoopNet]]'' |373 F.3d 544 ||[[Fourth Circuit|4th Cir.]] 2004 |Internet service provider was found liable for copyright infringement of photographs of commercial real estate by allowing subscribers to post the photographs on the provider's website. |- |''[[Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.]]'' |03-16987 D.C. No. CV-01-04626SBA/JL OPINION || [[Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2005 |[[Software license agreement|End User License Agreement]]s on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the license agreement by opening the box. |- |''[[Golan v. Gonzales]]'' |No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 || [[District of Colorado|D.Co.]] 2005 |Congress may retroactively restore copyright in works that have fallen into the public domain (a contrary principle in patent case law being held inapplicable to copyright). |- |''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]'' |545 U.S., 125 S. Ct. 2764 || 2005 |Distributors of [[peer-to-peer]] file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". |- |''[[Perfect 10 v. Google Inc]]'' |CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) ||[[Central District of California|CDCA]] 2006 |Thumbnails in Web searches were fair use. Framed inline images of full size were not infringing copies. (9th circuit reversed the DC's holding of no Fair Use) |} ==See also== *[[List of trademark case law]] *[[List of patent case law]] [[Category:Copyright case law]] [[Category:Copyright law lists|Case law]] [[Category:Case law lists by subject|Copyright]]