List of copyright case law

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.

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)
• 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
• 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"
• 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
• Telstra v Desktop Marketing Systems [2001]: originality required to attract copyright protection - Treat this with caution - see Nine v IceTV as a better case

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
• 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
• Théberge 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.

India

Pine Labs Pvt Ltd vs Gemalto Terminals India Pvt Limited- in FAO(OS) 635 of 2009 decided by DB Delhi High Court on 3.8.2011 (http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/AKS/judgement/01-10-2011/AKS03082011FAOOS6352009.pdf Pine Labs Pvt Ltd vs Gemalto Terminals India Ltd and others): In the absence of the period of assignment or territory of assignment being specified, the assignment is deemed to be for 5 years and territory is deemed to be the territory of India as per section 19(5) and 19(6) of Copyright Act. After the period of 5 years, copyright reverts back to assignor.

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 constitute 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

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.
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.

See also

• List of trademark case law
• List of patent case law