Subafilms Ltd’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Carell v. Shubert Organization, Inc. (2000), Maxwell Communication Corp. Plc Ex Rel. Homan v. Societe General Plc (In Re Maxwell Communication Corp. Plc) (1995)
1 federal appellate · 13 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 Bell v. Hood · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he “authorization” right [contained in section 106] refers to the doctrine of contributory infringement, which requires that the authorized act itself could violate one of the exclusive rights listed in section 106(1) — (5), we believe that “[i]t is simply not possible to draw a principled distinction” between an act that does not violate a copyright because it is not the type of conduct proscribed by section 106, and one that does not violate section 106 because the illicit act occurs overseas....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Use of the phrase “to authorize” is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers. For example, a person who lawfully acquires an authorized copy of a motion picture would be an in-fringer if he or she engages in the business of renting it to others for purposes of unauthorized public performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.