18 F. Supp. 35 - Smith v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1970
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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.
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. Hubbard · Universal Film Mfg. Co. v. Copperman · 14 F. Supp. 620 - Goes Lithographing Co. v. Apt Lithographic Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Copyright holders are given certain monopolistic rights by statute, but they can be maintained only by complying with the terms of the statute, which provides, as to notice, for the benefit and protection of third persons, that the notice of copyright shall be affixed to each copy published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, the required notice to contain either the word ‘copyright’ or its abbreviation, accompanied by the name of the proprietor or, if the work comes within the category of drawings, photo graphs, prints, or pictorial illustrations, it may consist of the letter ‘c’ inclosed within a circle, accompanied by the initials, monogram, mark, or symbol of the copyright proprietor; but, in that case, the name of the proprietor must appear ‘on some accessible portion of such copies or of the margin, back, permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted.’ U.S.C.A., title 17, §§ 9 and 18. “ ‘The provisions of the statute, as to notice, must be complied with in making and selling a copyrighted article, or otherwise there is a dedication to the public and the copyright protection is lost. “ ‘ “Publication with notice of copyright is the essence of compliance with the statute, and publication without such notice amounts to a dedication to the public sufficient to defeat all subsequent efforts at copyright protection.” Universal Film Mfg. Co. v. Copperman, D.C., 212 F. 301 .’ Fleisch”
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.