| Litigants: | Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles |
| Arguedate: | February 27 |
| Argueyear: | 1923 |
| Decidedate: | March 12 |
| Decideyear: | 1923 |
| Fullname: | Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles |
| Usvol: | 261 |
| Uspage: | 326 |
| Parallelcitations: | 43 S. Ct. 365; 67 L. Ed. 680 |
| Prior: | 279 F. 1018 (2d Cir. 1922) |
| Holding: | The statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised were he still alive. |
| Majority: | Holmes |
| Joinmajority: | a unanimous court |
| Lawsapplied: | Copyright Act of 1909 |
Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive.[1]
This case was reaffirmed in Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc..[2]