List of copyright case law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 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.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] Canada

[edit] France

[edit] 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"

[edit] 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 (1981) 3 All ER 241 [Exxon name has no copyright]
  • Express Newspapers v. News (UK) Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 201 (confirming Walter v. Lane)

[edit] United States

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.

Case name 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 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 2d Cir. 1930 No copyright for "stock characters".
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) 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 2d. Cir. 1964 Parody.
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States 487 F.2d 1345 Ct. Cl. 1973 Libraries' photocopying for research was fair use.
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman 669 F.2d 852 2d Cir. 1982
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 714 F.2d 1240 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 recorders) 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.
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. 797 F.2d 70 2nd Cir. 1986 Donkey Kong was not sufficiently similar to King Kong to be infringing.
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. 663 F. Supp. 706 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 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 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 780 F. Supp. 182 and 91 Civ 7648 SDNY 1991 Music sampling is generally copyright infringement.
Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 939 F.2d 91 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 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 9th Cir. 1992 Consumers may modify purchased computer games for their own use.
Rogers v. Koons 960 F.2d 301 2d Cir. 1992 Fair use and parody.
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 RAM ("working memory") copies of computer programs are governed by copyright.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 35 F.3d 1435 9th Cir. 1994 Certain components of computer programs' graphical user interfaces 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 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 1st Cir. 1995 Software interfaces are "modes of operation" and not subject to copyright.
Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church 59 F.3d 902, 910 9th Cir. 1995 Renewal rights are not assignable.
Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart 976 Supp. 149, 155 E.D.N.Y. 1997 The sale of software is the sale of a good.
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. 153 F.3d 82 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 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 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 SD Tex. 2000 The first-sale doctrine applies to software.
UMG v. MP3.com 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761 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 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) C.D.C.A. 2001 The first-sale doctrine applies to software and cannot be waived or taken away through an end-user license agreement.
Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin 252 F. 3d 1165 11th Cir. 2001 Parody and fair use.
Universal v. Reimerdes 273 F.3d 429 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 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.
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation 280 F.3d 934 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 4th Cir. 2004
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. 03-16987 D.C. No. CV-01-04626SBA/JL OPINION 9th Cir. 2005 End User License Agreements on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the license agreement by opening the box.
Golan v. Gonzalez No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 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) CDCA 2006 Thumbnails in Web searches that impinged upon market for images of that size were not fair use.

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/List_of_copyright_case_law.html"