This is a list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the area of copyright law. In the United States Constitution, the Copyright Clause in Article 1, Section 8 endows Congress with the power to create a copyright system. To avoid individual states' attempts at creating their own copyright systems, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1790, based on Great Britain's Statute of Anne. Over the decades since, copyright in the United States has become a more complicated system with longer terms and more tests, and has been the subject of many decisions by the Court.
The Supreme Court was the source of a number of concepts in the field, including fair use, the idea-expression divide, the useful articles or separability doctrine, and the uncopyrightability of federal documents.
This list is a list solely of United States Supreme Court decisions about applying copyright law. Not all Supreme Court decisions are ultimately influential and, as in other fields, not all important decisions are made at the Supreme Court level. Many federal courts issue rulings that are significant or come to be influential, but those are outside the scope of this list.
Because they share a clause of the Constitution and much the same justifications, there is considerable overlap between patent and copyright jurisprudence. As such, patent cases may appear in this list if they make their connections to copyright explicit in the opinions.
| Case | Citation | Year | Vote | Classification | Subject Matter | Opinions | Statute Interpreted | Summary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheaton v. Peters | 1834 | 5–2 | Substantive | There is no such thing as common law copyright after publication and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright. | |||||
| Backus v. Gould | 1849 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: McLean (unanimous) | The 1831 Act requires the courts award damages from copyright infringement based on the number of copies found in the accused's possession, not the number of infringing copies that they ever printed. | ||||
| Stephens v. Cady | 1852 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Nelson (unanimous) | Buying a map's copperplate in an execution sale does not imply purchasing the copyright. | ||||
| Stevens v. Gladding | 1854 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Curtis (unanimous) | The copyright of a work is not attached to the physical copperplate used to print the work, so purchasing the copperplate does not purchase the copyright. | ||||
| Little v. Hall | 1856 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: McLean (unanimous) | A contract with state officials to be the official publisher of court opinion documents does not transfer any copyright to that publisher, and they may not seek an injunction against someone else printing those documents. | ||||
| Paige v. Banks | 1872 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Davis (unanimous) | An agreement that transfers a copyright from the original author to a second party for perpetuity does not end with the statutory limit of copyright at the time the parties made the deal. | ||||
| Perris v. Hexamer | 1879 | 9–0 | Substantive | A map-maker has no more an exclusive right to use the form of the characters they employ to express their ideas on a map than they have to use the typeface they use for text. | |||||
| Trade-Mark Cases | 1879 | 9–0 | Non-Copyright | Constitutional basis for trademark regulation | Majority: Miller (unanimous) | The Copyright Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks because trademarks are not writings, discoveries, or inventions. | |||
| Baker v. Selden | 1879 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Bradley (unanimous) | Exclusive rights to the "useful art" described in a book are only available by patent. The description itself is protectable by copyright. | ||||
| Merrell v. Tice | 1881 | 9–0 | Substantive | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | Because statutory procedures exist for producing evidence of copyright formality observance, evidence of at least such veracity is required to prove copyright claims. | ||||
| Schreiber v. Sharpless | 1884 | 9–0 | Substantive | Charges of copyright infringement do not survive the death of the accused and may not be transferred to the executors of their will. | |||||
| Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony | 1884 | 9–0 | Substantive | Copyrightability of photography | Majority: Miller (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | Extended copyright protection to photography. | ||
| Thornton v. Schreiber | 1888 | 9–0 | Substantive | A copyright holder may not personally sue an employee of a business for copyright infringement if the employee was holding the infringing material on the order of their employer. | |||||
| Banks v. Manchester | 1888 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Blatchford (unanimous) | No copyright in state Supreme Court opinions. | ||||
| Callaghan v. Myers | 1888 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Blatchford (unanimous) | Arrangements of public domain records can represent copyrightable intellectual effort. | ||||
| Thompson v. Hubbard | 1889 | 9–0 | Substantive | Formalities | Majority: Blatchford (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | A later owner of a copyright is entitled to sue a previous owner for copyright infringement. However, the later owner's failure to observe formalities voids copyright and a nonexistent copyright cannot be infringed. | ||
| Higgins v. Keuffel | 1891 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Field (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1831, Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | A label describing the contents of a container is not subject to copyright. | |||
| Belford v. Scribner | 1892 | 8–0 | Substantive | 1) A copyright is held by default with the person whose name it was taken out in, regardless of potential conflicts with state law. 2) If a work contains a mixture of original and copyright infringing material, but it is so intermingled as to be inseparable, then the copyright holder may take all profits from the work. | |||||
| Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe | 1896 | 9–0 | Procedural | Majority: Gray (unanimous) | Due to diversity jurisdiction, the circuit court's decision was valid. Dismissed because a Supreme Court petition must invoke the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and a common law copyright claim does neither. | ||||
| Holmes v. Hurst | 1899 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Brown (unanimous) | When someone begins printing a serial book in a magazine, they may file for copyright of the entire book even if the book does not exist as a completed whole. | ||||
| Brady v. Daly | 1899 | 9–0 | Procedural | Peckham (unanimous) | The common law circuit court did have jurisdiction over the copyright infringement case because the statutory damages were not a penalty or forfeiture. | ||||
| Bolles v. Outing Co. | 1899 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Brown (White) (unanimous) | Copies already distributed are out of scope of copyright infringement damage lawsuits. |
| Case | Citation | Year | Vote | Classification | Subject Matter | Opinions | Statute Interpreted | Summary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company | 1903 | 7–2 | Substantive | Majority: Holmes Dissent: Harlan (McKenna) | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | Copyright protection of illustrations made for advertisements | |||
| Mifflin v. R. H. White Company | 1903 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Brown (unanimous) | The authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain. | ||||
| Mifflin v. Dutton | 1903 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Brown (unanimous) | The authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain. | ||||
| McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co. | 1903 | 8–0 | Substantive | Majority: White (unanimous) | Articles of a class made illegal by a statute that existed in the United States before the statute came into effect are still legal. | ||||
| American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister | 1907 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Day (unanimous) | The seizure by the United States marshal in a copyright case of certain pictures under a writ of replevin did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. | ||||
| Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co. | 1907 | 9–0 | Procedural | Majority: Day (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1895 | A copyright holder is limited to one action to collect infringing copies and statutory damages because the act's remedies are penal and must be observed without construction. | |||
| United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co. | 1908 | 9–0 | Substantive | Formalities | Majority: Holmes (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1874 | The requirement that notice reside in each copy of every edition does not extend to works published and sold abroad only. | ||
| White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. | 1908 | 9–0 | Substantive | Public performance right in music | International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1870, amendment in 1897 | Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright. | |||
| Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n | 1908 | 9–0 | Majority: Moody (unanimous) | The existence of some copyright-infringing information in a rote reference work does not entitle the original author to seek an injunction against the printing the later article when the later article's contents demonstrate significant original work. | |||||
| Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus | 1908 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Day (unanimous) | No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. | ||||
| Scribner v. Straus | 1908 | 9–0 | Majority: Day (unanimous) | Copyright holders did not have the statutory right to control the price of subsequent resales of lawfully purchased copies of their work. | |||||
| Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker | 1908 | 9–0 | Majority: Day (unanimous) | Congress having provided a remedy for those whose copyrights in maps are infringed, a civil action at common law for money damages cannot be maintained against the infringers. | |||||
| Bong v. Campbell Art Co. | 1909 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: McKenna (unanimous) | A copyright cannot be granted to a non-citizen whose country has not been acknowledged as in a reciprocal copyright arrangement with the United States by a formal presidential proclamation. Because the non-citizen is not granted a copyright, they cannot assign a copyright for a work to a citizen of a country with American copyright privileges. That citizen cannot register a copyright for the work. | ||||
| Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co. | 1909 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Day (unanimous) | A person cannot file a second copyright claim to amend the first, even if the first was determined to be invalid. | ||||
| Hills and Co. v. Hoover | 1911 | 9–0 | |||||||
| American Lithographic Co. v. Werkmeister | 1911 | 9–0 | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | A corporation defendant in a suit to enforce copyright infringement penalties is not entitled to a Fourth or Fifth Amendment objection to the admission of its bookkeeping entries into evidence when they are produced under a subpoena. | |||||
| Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. | 1911 | 9–0 | Substantive | Majority: Holmes (unanimous) | Producing a motion picture based on a dramatic work can be copyright infringement. The producer of the motion picture is liable even they are not the exhibitor. This does not extend to a restriction of the dramatic work's ideas; it is a recognition of the author's monopoly powers granted by Congress. | ||||
| Ferris v. Frohman | 1912 | 9–0 | Substantive | Publication and Public Performance | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | An unauthorized public production of an unpublished play does not invalidate the play owner's common law copyright. | |||
| Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. | 1912 | 4–3 | Non-Copyright | Majority: Lurton (McKenna, Holmes, Van Devanter) Dissent: White (Hughes, Lamar) | Patent owners can prescribe requirements to how licensees may use their patented invention. Selling a product that knowingly contravenes one of those restrictions is contributory infringement of the patent. | ||||
| Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell | 1913 | 5–4 | Non-Copyright | Majority: Day Dissent: Holmes (McKenna, Lurton, Van Devanter) | Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending rightsholders' rights beyond statute. Rights of copyright holder regarding "use" of copyrighted works. | ||||
| Straus v. American Publishers Association | 1913 | 9–0 | An agreement that is manifestly anti-competitive and illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act cannot be justified by copyright. | ||||||
| Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser | 1914 | 9–0 | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | When someone joins an ecclesiastical order, subject to individual state law, their income from copyright may be dedicated to that order's common fund as much as any other income or form of property. This does not violate any part of the Constitution if the member may withdraw from the order at any time. | |||||
| DeJonge and Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co. | 1914 | 9–0 | Majority: Holmes (unanimous) | Every instance of a copyrighted work must observe copyright notice formalities for the work to maintain copyright, even if the work appears multiple times on the same sheet of paper. Every copy of a copyrighted painting must bear the notice for the painting to maintain copyright. | |||||
| G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co. | 1915 | 9–0 | Non-Copyright | After a copyrighted work expires, the word used to designate that work falls into the public domain and cannot be trademarked. | |||||
| Herbert v. Shanley Co. | 1917 | 9–0 | Substantive | Public performance of live music in business establishments | Majority: Holmes (unanimous) | Hotels & restaurants that perform music must compensate composers, even if the venue is not separately charging patrons to hear the music. | |||
| International News Service v. Associated Press | 1918 | 5–3 | Non-Copyright | Hot News | While the information found in AP news was not copyrightable and subject to publici juris, AP has a quasi-property interest during the production of "hot news". | ||||
| L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co. | 1919 | 9–0 | Penalties awarded "in lieu of actual damages and profits" cannot be less than $250 for each case of copyright infringement. | ||||||
| Manners v. Morosco | 1920 | 7–2 | Substantive | Majority: Holmes Dissent: Clarke (Pitney) | 1) The copyright transfer contract was not limited to five years because the agreement dealt in minimum requirements. 2) A transfer of the copyright for the production of a play on stage does not grant the ability to make a motion picture based on the play. However, a grant of exclusivity implies a negative guarantee that the original creator will not do anything that may adversely affect that exclusivity, meaning the author forfeited their own ability to authorize a motion picture production. | ||||
| Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc. | 1923 | 9–0 | A person or corporation cannot file suits under the Copyright Act in areas in which they do not have an office and do no business. | ||||||
| Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles | 1923 | 9–0 | 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. | ||||||
| Educational Films Corp. v. Ward | 1931 | 6–3 | Substantive | Majority: Stone Dissent: Sutherland (Van Devanter, Butler) | New York Tax Law, Article 9-A | A corporate income tax may include royalties from copyrights in its calculation of overall income even though direct income from copyrights, a federal institution, is immune from state taxation. | |||
| Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. | 1931 | 9–0 | Substantive | Public performance right in radio broadcasts in business establishments | Majority: Brandeis (unanimous) | A hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction." NB: Gene Buck, plaintiff, was president of ASCAP. | |||
| Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal | 1932 | 9–0 | Substantive | State government taxation of copyright royalties | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | States may tax copyright royalties, as they can patent royalties, because even though copyrights & patents are granted by the federal government, they are still private property subject to taxation. | |||
| George v. Victor Talking Machine Co. | 1934 | 9–0 | per curiam | The district court's ruling of infringement of a song's common law copyright, granting an injunction so that damages could be determined, was interlocutory. The appeal came too late, so the Court vacated the appeal. | |||||
| Douglas v. Cunningham | 1935 | 9–0 | The statute allowed an award of $5,000 instead of a copyright infringement damages calculation based on the newspaper's circulation. | ||||||
| KVOS v. Associated Press | 1936 | 8–0 | Non-Copyright | Hot news | An association of newspapers cannot sue collectively to raise their projected damages above the minimum damages required for federal jurisdiction when only individual newspapers are parties to unfair competition. | ||||
| Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States | 1938 | 5–3 | Majority: Stone Dissent: O. Roberts (McReynolds, Butler) | ||||||
| Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson | 1939 | 6–3 | Substantive | Formalities | Majority: McReynolds Dissent: Black (O. Roberts, Reed) | The 1909 Act's deposit requirement did not require immediate deposit, or deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement | |||
| Gibbs v. Buck | 1939 | 8–1 | Substantive | 1) An association of copyright holders, ASCAP, may sum their collective costs to meet the damages threshold for federal jurisdiction. 2) A motion to dismiss allegations that raise "grave doubts about the constitutionality" of legislation should be denied. | |||||
| Buck v. Gallagher | 1939 | 8–1 | Substantive | 1) ASCAP members have a common and undivided interest in the right to license in association through the Society free of the state statute. 2) The lower court should have allowed ASCAP members the opportunity to price the cost of complying with the statute and the value of the copyrights affected by it. | |||||
| Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. | 1940 | 8–0 | Procedural | Damages | Majority: Hughes (unanimous) | Copyright Act of 1909 | In the case of an unauthorized adaptation, court may elect to award only a portion of an infringer's profits to the plaintiff. | ||
| Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC | 1941 | 9–0 | Non-Copyright | A practice short of a complete monopoly but which tends to create a monopoly and to deprive the public of the advantages from free competition in interstate trade, offends the policy of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the Guild was trying to create an artificial copyright monopoly via boycotts because clothes were uncopyrightable at the time. | |||||
| Watson v. Buck | 1941 | ||||||||
| Marsh v. Buck | 1941 | General statements that the law will be enforced if enacted are not threats against entities subject to the law. | |||||||
| Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons | 1943 | 5–3 | Substantive | Renewal terms and assignment | The renewal of copyright for the second term is not an opportunity for an author to renegotiate terms made during the first term that extended beyond the first term's length. | ||||
| United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. | 1948 | 7–1 | Non-Copyright | Antitrust | Majority: Douglas Dissent: Frankfurter (in part) | Practice of block booking and ownership of theater chains by film studios constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices. | |||
| Commissioner v. Wodehouse | 1949 | 6–3 | Non-Copyright | Taxation | Majority: Burton Dissent: Frankfurter (Murphy, Jackson) | Lump sums paid in advance by publications to non-resident aliens are taxable income under the Revenue Act and are indistinguishable from "royalties" paid over time within the meaning of that Act. | |||
| F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. | 1952 | 7–2 | Procedural | Majority: Jackson Dissent: Black (Frankfurter) | Court may grant statutory damages, even when infringer proves its gross profits were less than the statutory award. Judges granted wide latitude when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case. | ||||
| Mazer v. Stein | 1954 | 7–2 | Substantive | Majority: Reed Dissent: Douglas (Black) | Extended copyright protection to functional art. | ||||
| De Sylva v. Ballentine | 1956 | 9–0 | Substantive | Renewal terms and beneficiaries | Majority: Harlan II (unanimous) | After the death of an author, the widow and children are eligible to renew copyright, equally as a class. Additionally, conditional on state laws, illegitimate children are also eligible for a share of the copyright. | |||
| Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc. | 1958 | 4–4 | Substantive | Fair use in parody | aff'd 4-4 sub. nom., Benny v. Loew's, 239 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956) | ||||
| Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. | 1960 | 5–4 | Substantive | Duration | Majority: Douglas Dissent: Harlan II (Frankfurter, Whittaker, Stewart) | The executor of a copyright holder's will is eligible to renew that copyright. | |||
| Pub. Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover | 1962 | 5–3 | |||||||
| Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. | 1964 | 9–0 | Non-Copyright | An unpatented article belongs to the public and a state law that would prevent its copying would violate the Supremacy Clause. | |||||
| Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. | 1968 | 5–1 | Substantive | Public performance of broadcast television | Receiving a television broadcast (of a licensed work) does not constitute a "performance" | ||||
| Goldstein v. California | 1973 | 5–4 | Non-Copyright | Federal pre-emption of state criminal copyright law | Majority: Burger Dissent: Douglas (Brennan, Blackmun), Marshall (Brennan, Blackmun) | California's state statutes criminalizing record piracy did not violate the Copyright Clause | |||
| Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting | 1974 | 6–3 | Substantive | Public performance of broadcast television | Majority: Stewart Dissent: Blackmun (in part), Douglas (Burger) | Receiving a television broadcast from a "distant" source does not constitute a "performance" | |||
| Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken | 1975 | 7–2 | Substantive | Public performance of radio broadcasts in business establishments | Majority: Stewart Dissent: Burger (Douglas) Concurrence: Blackmun | Receiving a radio broadcast of a licensed work does not constitute a "performance". This effectively overruled Buck v. Jewel-LaSalle Realty Co. (1931) | |||
| Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States | 1975 | 4–4 | Substantive | Fair use in photocopies | Copyright Act of 1909, National Library of Medicine Act, Medical Library Assistance Act of 1965 | Affirmed by an equally divided court. It is a fair use for libraries to photocopy articles for use by patrons engaged in scientific research. | |||
| Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. | 1977 | 5–4 | Substantive | The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, nor does the Constitution prevent a State from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. | |||||
| Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting System | 1979 | 8–1 | Non-Copyright | Antitrust and copyright collective rights organizations | The issuance by ASCAP and BMI of blanket licenses does not constitute price-fixing per se unlawful under the antitrust laws | ||||
| Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. | 1984 | 5–4 | Substantive | Secondary liability and fair use in home recordings | Majority: Stevens Dissent: Blackmun (Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist) | The Betamax Case | |||
| Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder | 1985 | 5–4 | Substantive | Termination | Majority: Stevens Dissent: White (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun) | If the author of a work authorizes derivatives, the terms negotiated in exchange for that grant stand even if the grant is later rescinded. If the copyright holder deputizes another person to authorize derivative works, the law draws no distinction between such works and those directly authorized by the copyright holder. | |||
| Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises | 1985 | 6–3 | Substantive | Fair use in excerpts | Majority: O'Connor Dissent: Brennan (White, Marshall) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative Fair use. | ||
| Dowling. v. United States | 1985 | 6–3 | Non-Copyright | Criminal law impact of infringement | Majority: Blackmun Dissent: Powell (Burger, White) | Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally made copies are not stolen goods. | |||
| Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid | 1989 | 9–0 | Substantive | Work-made-for-hire | Majority: Marshall (unanimous) | The default rule is that the artist who creates a commissioned work retains copyright ownership of the work (because the artist is an independent contractor and not an employee producing a work made for hire.) However, this is only a presumption which can be modified by contract. | |||
| Stewart v. Abend | 1990 | 6–3 | Substantive | Derivative works | Majority: O'Connor Dissent: Stevens (Rehnquist, Scalia) Concurrence: White | Copyright Act of 1976 | Rights of the successor of a copyright interest | ||
| Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. | 1991 | 9–0 | Substantive | Copyrightability of facts and Idea/Expression Dichotomy | Majority: O'Connor Concurrence: Blackmun | Copyright Act of 1976 | Affirmed the need for a minimal amount of creativity before a work is copyrightable. "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright. | ||
| Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. | 1994 | 9–0 | Procedural | Attorneys Fees | Attorney's fees in copyright litigation may be awarded to successful defendants, as well as to successful plaintiffs | ||||
| Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. | 1994 | 9–0 | Substantive | Fair use in Commercial Parody | Majority: Souter Concurrence: Kennedy | Copyright Act of 1976 | Commercial parody can be fair use. | ||
| Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. | 1995 | 4–4 | Substantive | Scope of software copyrights. | |||||
| Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc. | 1998 | 9–0 | Substantive | Reimportation | First-sale doctrine applies to reimported goods | ||||
| Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. | 1998 | 9–0 | Procedural | Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in a copyright infringement case |
| Case | Citation | Year | Vote | Classification | Subject Matter | Opinions | Statute Interpreted | Summary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Times Co. v. Tasini | 2001 | 7–2 | Substantive | Collective works | Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Stevens (Breyer) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work. | ||
| Eldred v. Ashcroft | 2003 | 7–2 | Substantive | Term Extension | Challenge to Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998; held Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited. | ||||
| Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. | 2003 | 8–0 | Non-Copyright | Intersection of TM law with public domain works | Majority: Scalia (unanimous) | Lanham Act | Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work. | ||
| Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. | 2005 | 9–0 | Substantive | Secondary liability | Majority: Souter (unanimous) Concurrence: Ginsburg (Rehnquist, Kennedy), Breyer (Stevens, O'Connor) | Copyright Act of 1976 | Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". | ||
| Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. | 2007 | 7–1 | Non-Copyright | Majority: Ginsburg Concurrence: Alito (Thomas, Breyer) (in all but part) Dissent: Stevens | (Patent Act) | Liability for such unauthorized replication and installation of software in foreign countries must arise under the patent laws of foreign countries. Although a patent case, it discusses the nature of what is a copy of software. | |||
| Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick | 2010 | 8–0 | Procedural | Registration | Majority: Thomas Concurrence: Ginsburg (Stevens, Breyer) | Settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database | |||
| Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. | 2010 | 4–4 | Substantive | Affirming 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) | |||||
| Golan v. Holder | 2012 | 6–2 | Substantive | Restoration of copyright in public domain works | Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer (Alito) | Constitution gives broad discretion to Congress to decide how best to promote the "progress of science and the useful arts", including restoring copyright in public domain works. | |||
| Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | 2013 | 6–3 | Substantive | Majority: Breyer Concurrence: Kagan (Alito) Dissent: Ginsburg (Scalia (in part), Kennedy) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas. | |||
| Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. | 2014 | 6–3 | Substantive | Laches | Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer (Roberts, Kennedy) | Copyright Act of 1976 | The laches defense is not available in copyright infringement cases. | ||
| American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. | 2014 | 6–3 | Substantive | Public performance | Majority: Breyer Dissent: Scalia (Thomas, Alito) | Aereo's subscription service allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices; the live viewing was deemed to be an infringing "retransmission" within the meaning of the public performance right. | |||
| Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. | 580 U.S. ___ | 2017 | 6–2 | Substantive | Useful art, Useful articles | Majority: Thomas Concurrence: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer (Kennedy) | Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing can be copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article. | ||
| Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com | 586 U.S. ___ | 2019 | 9-0 | Procedural | A copyright owner may not file an infringement suit until the Register of Copyrights has granted the application for registration. | ||||
| Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. | 586 U.S. ___ | 2019 | 9-0 | Substantive | The Copyright Act’s award of "full costs" to a prevailing party in a copyright infringement claim is limited to six categories specified in the Fee Act of 1853 (the general costs statute). | ||||
| Allen v. Cooper | 589 U.S. ___ | 2020 | 9-0 | Substantive | Majority: Kagan Concurrence: Thomas, Breyer (Ginsburg) | Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. Authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States may not sue any state without its consent. | |||
| Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. | 589 U.S. ___ | 2020 | 5-4 | Substantive | Majority: Roberts (Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) Dissent: Thomas (Alito, Breyer), Ginsburg (Breyer) | Annotations to state law are ineligible for copyright. | |||
| Google v. Oracle | 2021 | 6-2 | Substantive | Majority Breyer (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) Dissent: Thomas (Alito) | The copying of APIs can be fair use. | ||||
| Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. | 589 U.S. ___ | 2022 | 6-3 | Procedural | Majority: Breyer (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett) Dissent: Thomas (Alito, Gorsuch) | Lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration. | |||
| Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith | 598 U.S. ___ | 2023 | 7–2 | Substantive | An allegedly infringing secondary work must be significantly altered from the original to be considered transformative where both works are used commercially for substantially the same purpose; courts must consider the specific context of the use when evaluating claims of transformative use. | ||||
| Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | 601 U.S. ___ | 2023 | 7–2 | Procedural | Assuming without deciding that the discovery rule applies to copyright, a copyright claim that is timely under the three-year statute of limitations may recover damages from infringements that occurred more than three years ago. |
As of, the Supreme Court has no copyright cases pending.
When the Court refuses to hear a case, justices are entitled to write dissents to that denial of certiorari.
| Case | Citation | Year | Subject Matter | Dissenter(s) | Statute Interpreted | Question | Dissent Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee v. Runge | 1971 | Because Congress's power to create copyright and patent laws both come from the Copyright Clause, should they not both be judged by the same standard? Lee argued that the standard should be patents' "novelty" rather than copyright's "originality." | Many of the interests of copyrights and patent overlap, and the part of Copyright Clause specifying that Congress's laws must "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a limit on Congress's authority. | |||||
| Data General Corp. v. Digidyne Corp. | 1985 | What constitutes forcing power in the absence of a large share of the general market? Must market power over "locked in" customers be analyzed at the outset of the original decision to purchase? What effect should be given to the existence of a copyright or other legal monopoly in determining market power? | The situation raised a number of complexities in the issue of whether tying software and hardware using copyrights or patents is anti-competitive, and the precedents set by the lower court were based on specious details. For example, a lower court had essentially said flatly that tying arrangements were anti-competitive, but the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise in cases like Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde. The issue was likely to become more important as the multi-billion dollar computer industry continued to grow, so it was better to address the problems sooner rather than later. | |||||
| Harper v. Maverick Recording Co. | 2010 | Should the "inadvertent innocent infringer" defense to copyright infringement be eliminated for all Internet music downloading? | The "innocent infringer" defense, which lowers statutory minimum damages of copyright infringement from $750 to $200, was written in a time when copyright notices would be clearly affixed to physical media, which was part of the expectation in favor of the defense. A digital music MP3 file could not bear a human-readable copyright notice, so there was a strong argument for the defense. Moreover, the lower courts declined to take mitigating factors such as the 16-year-old Harper's age into consideration, and perhaps they should have. |