Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 F.2d 945 - Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

216 F.2d 945 · 1954

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably 25 Cal. 3d 813 - Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979), Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates (1978)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

9019541960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H · Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. · Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati · Manners v. Morosco · Smith v. McCullough

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is conceivable that the character really constitutes the story being told, but if the character is only the chessman in the game of telling the story he is not within the area of the protection afforded by the copyright.” 216 F.2d at 950.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We are of the opinion that since the use of characters and character names are nowhere specifically mentioned in the agreements [including the assignment of copyright instrument], but that other items, including the title, ‘The Maltese Falcon’, and their use are specifically mentioned as being granted [to Warner Brothers], that the character rights with the names cannot be held to be within the grants, and that under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, general language cannot be held to include them.” (Footnote omitted.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Such doubt as there is should be resolved in favor of the composer. The clearest language is necessary to divest the author from the fruit of his labor.”
    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.