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 [hide]
1 Australia
2 Canada
3 France
4 New Zealand
5 United Kingdom
6 United States
7 See also
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
Th?berge 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

Gyles v Wilcox (1740) 3 Atk. 143; 26 Eng. Rep. 489 (a fair abridgement of a work is not copyright infringement)
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)
United States

    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
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.
Case name    Reporter    Court/Year    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.
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company    209 U.S. 1    1908    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    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.
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.    191 F.2d 99    2d. Cir. 1951    Variations of works in the public domain can be copyrighted if the new "author" contributed something more than a "merely trivial" variation, but no large measure of novelty is necessary.
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).
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.    344 U.S. 227    1952    Provided wide latitude to judges when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case.
Mazer v. Stein    347 U.S. 201    1954    Extended copyright protection to applied art.
Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.    329 F. 2d 541    2d. Cir. 1964    Parody.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists    392 U.S. 390    1968    Television broadcasters "perform" copyrighted works. Viewers do not perform. CATV was more like a viewer than a broadcaster and did not infringe when rebroadcasting copyrighted works.
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States    487 F.2d 1345    Ct. Cl. 1973    Libraries' photocopying for research was fair use.
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken    422 U.S. 151    1975    Playing a radio broadcast of a copyrighted work at a business was not copyright infringement Radio reception does not constitute a "performance" of copyrighted material.
Schnapper v. Foley    667 F.2d 102    D.C. Cir. 1981    Affirmed that copyright exists for works created by contractors for the US government.
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman    669 F.2d 852    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    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.
Fisher v. Dees    794 F.2d 432    9th Cir. 1986    Parody of song performance is legitimate fair use
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, 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    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 per se are "methods of operation" and are not covered by copyright.
Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church    59 F.3d 902, 910    9th Cir. 1995    Renewal rights are not assignable.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom    907 F. Supp. 1361    N.D. Cal. 1995    Immunity of copyright liability for Internet Intermediaries.
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. Case was dropped.
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.
The Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co.    14 F.Supp.2d 154    District Court of Massachusetts 1998    Internal structure does not qualify as "building" under 17 U.S.C. § 101.
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 v. LoopNet    373 F.3d 544    4th Cir. 2004    Internet service provider was found not liable for copyright infringement of photographs uploaded by subscribers, despite the screening process by a employee of the Internet service provider before the photographs were stored and displayed.
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. Gonzales    No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800    D.Co. 2005    Congress may not 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    416 F. Supp. 2d 828    C.D. Cal. 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)
Perfect 10 v. CCBill LLC    488 F.3d 1102    9th Cir. 2007    DMCA notification procedures place the burden of policing copyright infringement on the owners of the copyright. CDA Section 230 means only “federal intellectual property," and does not include state right of publicity claims.
Perfect 10 v. Visa    494 F.3d 788    9th Cir. 2007    A case about secondary copyright infringement
Kahle v. Mukasey    No. 04-17434    9th Cir. 2007    Congress did not alter the "traditional contours of copyright protection" by permitting automatic extension of copyrights.