Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 23 district ·

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

1. “When the right and ability to supervise coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials — even in the absence of actual knowledge that the copyright monolpoly [sic] is being impaired ..., the purpose of copyright law may be best effectuated by the imposition of liability upon the beneficiary of that exploitation.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gordon v. Nextel Communications & Mullen Advertising, Inc. · Rams v. Def Jam Recordings, Inc.

2. “[T]he cases are legion which hold the dance hall proprietor liable for the infringement of copyright resulting from the performance of a musical composition by a band or orchestra whose activities provide the proprietor with a source of customers and enhanced income. He is liable whether the bandleader is considered, as a technical matter, an employee or an independent contractor, and whether or not the proprietor has knowledge of the compositions to be played or any control over their selection. We believe that the principle which can be extracted from the dance hall cases is a sound one .... Green licensed one facet of its variegated business enterprise, for some thirteen years, to the Jalen Amusement Company. Green retained the ultimate right of supervision over the conduct of the record concession and its employees. By reserving for itself a proportionate share of the gross receipts from Jalen’s sales of phonograph records, Green had a most definite financial interest in the success of Jalen’s concession; 10% or 12% of the sales price of every record sold by Jalen, whether “bootleg” or legitimate, found its way — both literally and figuratively— into the coffers of the Green Company. We therefore conclude ... that Green’s relationship to its infringing licensee, as well as its strong concern for the financial success of the phonograph record concession, renders it liable for the unauthorized sales of the “bootleg” records. The imposition of liability upon the Green Compan”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · 869 F. Supp. 1103 - Banff, Ltd. v. Limited, Inc.

3. “When a District Court’s determination of infringement hinges upon such purely factual questions as whether the defendant had access to the plaintiffs copyrighted materials and whether the physical acts of copying or selling actually occurred, the scope of review on appeal is limited to determining if the District Court’s conclusions are clearly erroneous. But where, as here, the facts are undisputed, and the issue of infringement depends merely upon a legal conclusion to be drawn from a consideration of the parties’ relationship, we feel that an appellate court’s power of review need not be so constrained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Polygram International Publishing, Inc. v. Nevada/TIG, Inc.