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]]