Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 F.1d 533 - King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer

King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer’s Empirical Analysis

299 F. 533 · 1924

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Arnstein v. Porter (1946), Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants (1977)

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

1201924193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. · White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company · Gay v. Parpart · Baker v. Selden · Holmes v. Hurst

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

  1. ““ ‘What is meant by a copy ? We have already referred to the common understanding of it as a reproduction or duplication of a thing. A definition was given by Bailey, J., in West v. Francis, 5 Bam. & Aid. 743, quoted with approval in Boosey v. Whight, 80 L. T. R. 561. He said: “A copy is that which comes so near to the original as to give to every 'person seeing it the idea created by the original.” ’ * * * “The protection accorded the owner of the copyright is of the intellectual product of the author. It is intended to protect any species of publication which the author selects to embody his literary product.” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We do not think it avoids the infringement of the copyright to take the substance or idea, and produce it through a different medium, and picturing in shape and details in sufficient imitation to make it a true copy of the character thought of by the appellant’s employee. Doing this is omitting the work of the artisan, but appropriating the genius of the artist.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The form of the horse, embodying the aspect of humor, was the essence of the cartoon; its end, within the artist’s purpose, and its object, the production of amusement in contemplation. We think the copyright law was intended to give protection to the creation of that form, protection to its value in that form, to give amusement in contemplation.””
    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.