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 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.
19th century Case Citation Year Vote ClassificationSubject MatterOpinionsStatute InterpretedSummary Wheaton v. Peters 1834 5–2 Substantive Copyrightability of laws,Common law copyright,Copyright formalities Majority: McLean Dissent: Thompson, Baldwin Copyright Act of 1790,Copyright Act of 1831 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 Statutory damages for copyright infringement Majority: McLean (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831 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 Copyright transfer Majority: Nelson (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831 Buying a map's copperplate in an execution sale does not imply purchasing the copyright. Stevens v. Gladding 1854 9–0 Substantive Copyright transfer,Equity Majority: Curtis (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831 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 Copyright transfer,Copyrightability of laws Majority: McLean (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831 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 Copyright transfer,Copyright renewal in the United States Majority: Davis (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1790,Copyright Act of 1831 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 Copyrightability of symbols Majority: Waite Copyright Act of 1870 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) Copyright Clause,Copyright Act of 1870,Unconstitutional trademark acts 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 Idea–expression divide,Useful art Majority: Bradley (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831 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 Majority: Bradley 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 Majority: Waite Copyright Act of 1870 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 Majority: Miller Copyright Act of 1870 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 Copyrightability of laws Majority: Blatchford (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1870 No copyright in state Supreme Court opinions. Callaghan v. Myers 1888 9–0 Substantive Copyrightability of laws,Public domain Majority: Blatchford (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831,Copyright Act of 1870 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 Majority: Blatchford Copyright Act of 1870 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 Diversity jurisdiction,Common law copyright Majority: Gray (unanimous) International Copyright Act of 1891 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) Copyright Act of 1831 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 Statutory damages for copyright infringement, Equity Peckham (unanimous) Copyright Act of 1831,amendment in 1856,Copyright Act of 1870 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) Copyright Act of 1831,Copyright Act of 1870 Copies already distributed are out of scope of copyright infringement damage lawsuits.
20th century