Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
106 F.3d 284 · 1997
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998), Danjaq Llc Delaware Limited Liability Company v. Sony Corporation (2001)
29 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 502 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Calder v. Jones · Soberon v. United States · Fogerty Fantasy Inc
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[wjhere the infringements of one work were committed by a single infringer acting individually, a single award of statutory damages would be made. Similarly, where the work was infringed by two or more joint tortfeasors, the bill would make them jointly and severally liable for an amount in the $250 to $10,000 range. However, where separate infringements for which two or more defendants are not jointly liable are jointed [sic] in the same action, separate awards of statutory damages would be appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.