Pickett v. Prince’s Empirical Analysis
207 F.3d 402 · 2000
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Gaiman v. McFarlane (2004), United States v. Smith (2004)
16 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 507 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. · Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc. · Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc. · Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fic tionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“constrained only by the doctrine of the law of the case”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Copyright Act grants the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyright work. So [plaintiff] could not make a derivative work based on the [defendant’s] symbol without [defendant’s] authorization even if [plaintiffs] guitar had a smidgeon of originality. This is a sensible result. A derivative work is, by definition, bound to be very similar to the original. Concentrating the right to make derivative works in the owner of the original work prevents what might otherwise be an endless series of infringement suits posing insoluble difficulties of proof... It is very difficult to see how a derivative work not made by the owner of the original work could fail to infringe it, given the definition of derivative work.”
1 later decision 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.