Copyright case law

A

• Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp (1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code.
• Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart (1997) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good.
• Autodesk v Dyason (No.2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 (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)

B

• Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell (1913) US Supreme Court- Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits license to extend holders rights beyond statute.
• Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus (1908) US Supreme Court- No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holders rights beyond statute defined by congress.
• Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999) photograph of public domain work is not original([1])

C

• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994) 510 U.S. 569 (commercial parody is fair use (USA))
• 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, 80 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996) (USA)]
• CBS Records v. Gross (1989) 15 IPR 385 (a cover version of a song can be an original work itself capable of copyright protection (Aus.))
• 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 (Aus.))
• Corelli v. Grey (1913) 29 TLR 570 (four reasons for clear objective similarity between works)
• Cuisenaire v Reed [1963] VR 719 (a literary work cannot be infringed by a three-dimensional reproduction (Aus.))

D

• Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2002) (proper citation needed here and in article) (attempt to use trademark to keep rights to a public domain work failed.)
• Dick v. Yates (1881) 18 Ch D 76 (a title is not long enough to consistute a literary work (U.K.)
• Re Dickens (1934) 1 Ch 267 (U.K.)
• Donahue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd (1938) Ch 106 ["idea-expression divide" (U.K.)]
• Donaldson v Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 (copyright is not perpetual (UK))
• Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp(1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code.

E

• Elanco v. Mandops [1979] FSR 46 (instructions on herbicide are a literary device (Aus.))
• Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. (1999) (US) 11th Cir. Ct of Appeals (giving public speech is not public domain publication under 1909 Act)
• Express Newspapers v. News (UK) Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 201 (confirming Walter v. Lane (UK))
• Exxon Corp v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International (1981) 3 All ER 241 [Exxon name has no © (U.K.)]

F

• Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991) [list of telephone numbers & addresses have no © (U.S.)]

G

• Grand Upright Music Ltd v. Warner Bros Records 91 Civ 7648 SDNY (1991) (music sampling is copyright infringement (US))
• 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" (NZ))
• Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd (1990) 17 IPR 417 per Pincus J, what is not a sculpture (Aus))

H

• 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 (UK))

I

• Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998).

J

• Jockey Club v. Standen (1985) 8 C.P.R.(3d) 283, 288 (B.C.C.A.) [Judicial decisions have no © (Canada)]

K

• Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, (1999) U.S. App. LEXIS 1786 (fair use, thumbnails & inline linking [U.S.])
• Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation (1991) 758 F. Supp. 1522 SDNY, copies of articles for educational use --> not fair use

L

• 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")

M

• MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. (1993) RAM copies are considered copies governed by copyright.
• Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; 98 ER 201 (copyright is a form of property (UK))
• Macmillan Co. v. King (1914) 223 F. 862 District Ct, Mass., limits of fair use in educational context

N

• New York Times Company v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) 206 F.3d 161, freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work.
• Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) The First Sale Doctrine applies to software.

O

P

• Pacific Film Laboratories v. Commissioner of Tax (1970) 121 CLR 154 [negative right definition (Australia)]

Q

R

S

• Sega Enterprises Ltd v. Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd 35 IPR 161 (interactive video games involving computer images fall in the definition of cinematograph film (Aus.))
• Softman v. Adobe (2001)The First Sale Doctrine applies to software and can not be waived or taken away through an EULA.
• Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios Consumer uses of video recorder fair use mentions specifically time shifting and archival purposes.
• Step-Saver Data Systets, Inc. v. Wise Technology (1991) the court concluded that subsequent changes to the Copyright Act had rendered the need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software "largely anachronistic.".
• Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (2001) [parody is fair use (11th cir. US Court of Appeals)]

T

U

V

W

• Walter v. Lane (1900) AC 539 ["reporter's copyright" (U.K.)]

X

Y

• Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) 21 IPR 481 ("copyright law does not provide adequate protection of Aboriginal community claims to regulate the reporoduction and use of works which are essentially communal in origin" (Aus.))

Z

• Zeccola v. Universal City Studios Inc. (1982) 46 ALR 189 (there is no copyright 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 compyright (Aus.))

This article is a stub. If you are knowledgeable in this subject area please feel free to improve it. As this is a list of leading legal cases improving it means that you should add other leading legal cases in the copyright area, if you cannot do a case summary only add a case name if you have a valid citation to that case (so someone else can read the case if they are not familar with it).

Referenced By