Louis Dejonge Company v. Breuker & Kessler Company’s Empirical Analysis
235 U.S. 33 · 1914
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Mazer v. Stein (1954), Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. (1960)
28 federal appellate · 10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLouis Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gorham Company v. White · Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. · Callaghan v. Myers · American Tobacco Company v. Emil Werckmeister · Bolles v. Outing 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems to us that the case is disposed of by the statement. The thing protected and the only thing was the painting, the whole of which was reproduced in a single square. Every reproduction of a copyrighted work must bear the statutory notice. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284 , 294, 52 L.Ed. 208, 215, 28 Sup.Ct.Rep. 72, 12 Ann.Cas. 595. It is suggested that it is overtechnical to require a repetition of the notice upon every square in a single sheet that makes a harmonious whole. This argument tacitly assumes that we can look to such larger unity as the sheet possesses. But that unity is only the unity of a design that is not patented. The protected object does not gain more extensive privileges by being repeated several times upon one sheet of paper, as any one would recognize if it were the Gioconda. The appellant is claiming the same rights as if this work were one of the masterpieces of the world, and he must take them with the same limitations that would apply to a portrait, a holy family, or a scene of war.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the notice must be repeated on each of each of the twelve squares, although they did not present themselves as separate squares on the continuous strip.”
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.