Judicial Opinions, Statutes and Government Rules-Regulations are not Copyright Protected in United state of America [USA]

Wheaton vs Peter, 33 U.S, 991, 668 [1834] was the first copyright case in the United States till held good law and continuing as quoted in the recent decisions.

Case Title	Citation	Year	Vote	Classification	Subject Matter	Opinions	Statute Interpreted	Summary of Opinions
Wheaton v. Peters	33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591	1834	5 – 2	Substantive	Copyrightability/Common law Copyright/Formalities	Majority: McLean Dissent: Thompson, Baldwin		There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright.
Backus v. Gould	48 U.S. (7 How.) 798	1849		Substantive		Majority: McLean(unanimous)	Copyright Act of 1831
Stephens v. Cady	55 U.S.(14 How.) 528	1852	9 – 0			Majority: Nelson(unanimous)
Stevens v. Gladding	58 U.S.447	1854				Majority: Curtis(unanimous)
Little v. Hall	59 U.S.(18 How.) 165	1856				Majority: McLean(unanimous)
Paige v. Banks	80 U.S.(13 Wall.) 608	1872				Majority: Davis(unanimous)
Perris v. Hexamer	99 U.S.674	1879				Majority: Waite
Trade-Mark Cases	100 U.S.82	1879	9 – 0	Non-Copyright	Constitutional basis for Trademark regulation	Majority: Miller(unanimous)		Copyright Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate trademarks
Baker v. Selden	101 U.S.99	1879	9 – 0	Substantive	Idea/Expression Dichotomy	Majority: Bradley(unanimous)		Idea-expression divide; differences between copyright & patent law
Merrell v. Tice	104 U.S.557	1881				Majority: Bradley		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	110 U.S.76	1884				Majority: Waite		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	111 U.S.53	1884	9 – 0	Substantive	Copyrightability of photography	Majority: Miller(unanimous)		Extended copyright protection to photography.
Thornton v. Schreiber	124 U.S.612	1888				Majority: Miller
Banks v. Manchester	128 U.S.244	1888	9 – 0	Substantive	Copyrightability of laws	Majority: Blatchford(unanimous)		No copyright in state Supreme Court opinions.
Callaghan v. Myers	128 U.S.617	1888				Majority: Blatchford(unanimous)		Arrangements of public domain records can represent copyrightable intellectual effort.
Thompson v. Hubbard	131 U.S.123	1889				Majority: Blatchford(unanimous)
Higgins v. Keuffel	140 U.S.428	1891				Majority: Field(unanimous)		A label describing the contents of a container is not subject to copyright.
Belford v. Scribner	144 U.S.488	1892				Majority: Blatchford
Webster v. Daly	163 U.S.155	1896				Majority: Fuller(unanimous)
Press Pub Co v. Monroe	164 U.S.105	1896				Majority: Gray(unanimous)
Holmes v. Hurst	174 U.S.82	1899				Majority: Brown(unanimous)
Brady v. Daly	175 U.S.148	1899				Peckham(unanimous)
Bolles v. Outing Co.	175 U.S.262	1899				Majority: Brown (White) (unanimous)		Copies already distributed are out of scope of copyright infringement damage lawsuits.
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company	188 U.S.239	1903	7 – 2	Substantive	Copyrightability of commercial art	Majority: Holmes Dissent: Harlan(McKenna)		Copyright protection of illustrations made for advertisements
Mifflin v. R. H. White Company	190 U.S.260	1903				Majority: Brown(unanimous)
Mifflin v. Dutton	190 U.S.265	1903				Majority: Brown(unanimous)
McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co.	191 U.S.267	1903	8 – 0			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	207 U.S.284	1907				Majority: Day(unanimous)
Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co.	207 U.S.375	1907				Majority: Day(unanimous)
United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co.	208 U.S.260	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.	209 U.S. 1	1908	9 – 0	Substantive	Public performance right in music	Majority: Day(unanimous) Concurrence:Holmes		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	209 U.S.20	1908				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	210 U.S.339	1908	9 – 0	Substantive	First-sale doctrine	Majority: Day(unanimous)		No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder’s rights beyond statute defined by Congress.
Scribner v. Straus	210 U.S.352	1908				Majority: Day
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker	210 U.S.356	1908				Majority: Day
Bong v. Campbell Art Co.	214 U.S.236	1909				Majority: McKenna
Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co.	215 U.S.182	1909				Majority: Day
Hills and Co. v. Hoover	220 U.S.329	1911				Majority: Day
American Lithographic Co. v. Werkmeister	221 U.S.603	1911				Hughes
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros.	222 U.S.55	1911	9 – 0	Substantive	Derivative works and Secondary liability	Majority: Holmes(unanimous)
Ferris v. Frohman	223 U.S.424	1912	9 – 0	Substantive	Publication and Public Performance	Majority: Hughes(unanimous)
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.	224 U.S. 1	1912		Non-Copyright		Majority: Lurton(McKenna, Holmes, Van Devanter) Dissent: White(Hughes, Lamar)
Bauer & Cie. v. O’Donnell	229 U.S. 1	1913	5 – 4	Non-Copyright	Intersection of patents and first-sale doctrine	Majority: Day Dissent: Holmes(McKenna, Lurton, Van Devanter)
Straus v. American Publishers Association	231 U.S.222	1913				Majority: Day
Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser	234 U.S.640	1914				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.	235 U.S.33	1914				Majority: Holmes
G & C Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co.	237 U.S.618	1915		Non-Copyright		Majority: Day
Herbert v. Shanley Co.	242 U.S.591	1917	9 – 0	Substantive	Public performance of live music in business establishments	Majority: Holmes(unanimous)	Copyright Act of 1909	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	248 U.S.215	1918	5 – 3	Non-Copyright	Hot News	Majority: Pitney Dissent: Holmes(McKenna), Brandeis		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.	249 U.S.100	1919				Majority: Van Devanter
Ex parte Wagner	249 U.S.465	1919				Majority: CLARKE
Meccano, Ltd. v. Wanamaker	253 U.S.136	1920				Majority: McReynolds
Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc.	261 U.S.174	1923				Majority: Brandeis		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 Corporation v. Knowles	261 U.S.326	1923				Majority: Holmes
Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty	264 U.S.359	1924
Educational Films Corporation v. Ward	282 U.S.379	1931				Majority: Stone Sutherland(Van Devanter, BUTLER)
Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co.	283 U.S.191	1931	9 – 0	Substantive	Public performance right in radio broadcasts in business establishments	Majority: Brandeis(unanimous)	Copyright Act of 1909
Fox Film Corp v. Doyal	286 U.S.123	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.
Hurn v. Oursler	289 U.S.238	1933				Majority: Sutherland
George v. Victor Co.	293 U.S.377	1934
Douglas v. Cunningham	294 U.S.207	1935
Interstate Circuit v. United States	304 U.S.55	1938				Majority: Stone Dissent: O. Roberts(McReynolds, BUTLER)
Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson	306 U.S.30	1939	6 – 3	Substantive	Formalities	Majority: McReynolds Dissent: Black (O. Roberts, Reed)	Copyright Act of 1909	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	307 U.S.66	1939				Majority: Reed Dissent: Black
Buck v. Gallagher	307 U.S.95	1939				Majority: Reed Dissent: Black
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.	309 U.S.390	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.
Watson v. Buck	313 U.S.387	1941				Majority: Black
Marsh v. Buck	313 U.S.406	1941				Majority: Black
Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons	318 U.S.643	1943	5 – 3	Substantive	Renewal terms and assignment	Majority: Frankfurter Dissent: Black, Douglas, Murphy	Copyright Act of 1909	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.	334 U.S.131	1948	7 – 1	Non-Copyright	Antitrust	Majority: Douglas Dissent: Frankfurter (in part)	Sherman Antitrust Act	Practice of block booking and ownership of theater chains by film studios constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices.
Commissioner v. Wodehouse	337 U.S.369	1949				Majority: Burton Dissent: Frankfurter(Murphy, Jackson)
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.	344 U.S.227	1952	7 – 2	Procedural	Election of remedies (Statutory Damages)	Majority: Jackson Dissent: Black(Frankfurter)	Copyright Act of 1909	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	347 U.S.201	1954	7 – 2	Substantive	Copyrightability of sculpture and Idea/Expression Dichotomy	Majority: Reed Dissent: Douglas(Black)	Copyright Act of 1909	Extended copyright protection to functional art.
De Sylva v. Ballentine	351 U.S.570	1956	9 – 0	Substantive	Renewal terms and beneficiaries	Majority: Harlan II(unanimous)	Copyright Act of 1909	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.	356 U.S.43	1958	4 – 4	Substantive	Fair use in parody	per curiam		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.	362 U.S.373	1960	5 – 4	Substantive	Duration	Majority: Douglas Dissent: Harlan II(Frankfurter, WHITTAKER, Stewart)
Public Affairs Press v. Rickover	369 U.S.111	1962				per curiam Concurrence:Douglas
Sears, Roebuck, & Co. v. Stiffel Co.	376 U.S.225	1964				Majority: Black Concurrence:Harlan II
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting	376 U.S.234	1964
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.	392 U.S.390	1968	5 – 1	Substantive	Public performance of broadcast television	Majority: Stewart Dissent: Fortas		Receiving a television broadcast (of a licensed work) does not constitute a “performance”
Goldstein v. California	412 U.S.546	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	415 U.S.394	1974	6 – 3	Substantive	Public performance of broadcast television	Majority: Stewart Dissent: Blackmun (in part), Douglas(Burger)		Receiving a television broadcast does not constitute a “performance”
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken	422 U.S.151	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	420 U.S.376	1976	4 – 4	Substantive	Fair use in photocopies	per curiam		aff’d by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975)
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.	433 U.S.562	1977				Majority: White Dissent: Powell(Brennan, Marshall), Stevens
Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting System	441 U.S. 1	1979	8 – 1	Non-Copyright	Antitrust and copyright collective rights organizations	Majority: White Dissent: Stevens	Sherman Antitrust Act	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.	464 U.S.417	1984	5 – 4	Substantive	Secondary liability and fair use in home recordings	Majority: Stevens Dissent: Blackmun(Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist)	Copyright Act of 1976	The Betamax Case
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder	469 U.S.153	1985	5 – 4	Substantive	Termination	Majority: Stevens Dissent: White(Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun)	Copyright Act of 1976	Assignment of royalties under the Copyright Act
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises	471 U.S.539	1985	6 – 3	Substantive	Fair use in excerpts	Majority: O’Connor Dissent: Brennan(White, Marshall)	Copyright Act of 1976
Dowling. v. United States	473 U.S.207	1985	6 – 3	Non-Copyright	Criminal law impact of infringement	Majority: Blackmun Dissent: Powell(Burger, White)	Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914	Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally made copies are not stolen goods.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid	490 U.S.730	1989	9 – 0	Substantive	Work-made-for-hire	Majority: Marshall(unanimous)	Copyright Act of 1976	Works for hire.
Stewart v. Abend	495 U.S.207	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.	499 U.S.340	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.
Prei Inc. v. Columbia Pictures	508 U.S.49	1993				Majority: Thomas
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.	510 U.S.517	1994	9 – 0	Procedural	Attorneys Fees	Majority: Rehnquist Concurrence: Thomas	Copyright Act of 1976	Attorney’s fees in copyright litigation may be awarded to successful defendants, as well as to successful plaintiffs
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.	510 U.S.569	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.	516 U.S.233	1995	4 – 4	Substantive	Copyrightability of software program interfaces	per curiam	Copyright Act of 1976	Scope of software copyrights.
Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc.	523 U.S.135	1998	9 – 0	Substantive	Reimportation	Majority: Stevens Concurrence: Ginsburg	Copyright Act of 1976	First-sale doctrine applies to reimported goods
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.	523 U.S.340	1998	9 – 0	Procedural	Right to Jury Trial on Statutory Damages	Majority: Thomas Concurrence: Scalia	Copyright Act of 1976	Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in a copyright infringement case
New York Times Co. v. Tasini	533 U.S.483	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	537 U.S.186	2003	7 – 2	Substantive	Term Extension	Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Stevens, Breyer	Copyright Act of 1976
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.	539 U.S.23	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.	545 U.S.913	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.	550 U.S.437	2007	7 – 1	Non-Copyright		Ginsburg Concurrence: Alito (Thomas, Breyer) (in all but part) Dissent: Stevens	35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(Patent Act)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick	559 U.S.154	2010	8 – 0	Procedural	Registration	Majority: Thomas Concurrence: Ginsburg(Stevens, Breyer)	Copyright Act of 1976	Settlement of copyright infringement claims relating to an electronic database
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.	562 U.S.40	2010	4 – 4	Substantive	First-sale doctrine	per curiam	Copyright Act of 1976	Affirming 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008)
Golan v. Holder	565 U.S.302, 132 S. Ct. 873	2012	6 – 2	Substantive	Restoration of copyright in public domain works	Majority: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer (Alito)	Copyright Act of 1976
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.	568 U.S.519, 133 S. Ct. 1351	2013	6 – 3	Substantive	First-sale doctrine	Majority: Breyer Dissent: Ginsburg(Scalia (in part), Kennedy) Concurrence: Kagan (Alito)	Copyright Act of 1976	The first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works made lawfully overseas.
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.	572 U.S. ____	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.	573 U.S. ____	2014	6 – 3	Substantive	Public performance	Majority: Breyer Dissent: Scalia(Thomas, Alito)	Copyright Act of 1976
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.	580 U.S. ___	2017	6 – 2	Substantive	Useful articles	Majority: Thomas Concurrence: Ginsburg Dissent: Breyer(Kennedy)	Copyright Act of 1976

Related Stories