Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 federal appellate · 20 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “It is not for courts to judge whether the interests of authors clearly lie upon one side of this question rather than the other. If an author cannot make an effective assignment of his renewal, it may be worthless to him when he is most in need. Nobody would pay an author for something he cannot sell. We cannot draw a principle of law from the familiar stories of garret-poverty of some men of literary genius. Even if we could do so, we cannot say that such men would regard with favor a rule of law preventing them from realizing on their assets when they are most in need of funds. Nor can we be unmindful of the fact that authors have themselves devised means of safeguarding their interests. We do not have such assured knowledge about authorship, and particularly about song writing, or the psychology of gifted writers and composers, as to justify us as judges in importing into Congressional legislation a denial to authors of the freedom to dispose of their property possessed by others. While authors may have habits making for intermittent want, they may have no less a spirit of independence which would resent treatment of them as wards under guardianship of the law.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation William A. McCall Jr. Ethel B. McCall and James B. McCall Geraldine McCall Silva Deborah McCall Aleto, Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation James B. McCall Geraldine McCall Silva Deborah McCall Aleto, William A. McCall Jr. Ethel B. McCall Robert Gene Yount Robert Blue Yount v. Acuff Rose-Opryland, a Corporation Acuff Rose Music, Inc., a Corporation Broadcast Music, Inc., a Corporation James B. McCall Deborah McCall Aleto, Geraldine McCall Silva · 314 F. Supp. 640 - Picture Music, Inc. v. Bourne, Inc.

2. ““[T]he author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. Bourne, Inc. · Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Borst Music Pub. Co.

3. “). 51 The second concept — the renewal term — is a distinctive feature of the 1909 Act, not carried into the 1976 Act for works created on or after January 1, 1978, see 17 U.S.C. § 302(a) (establishing single copyright term). 7 As enacted, the 1909 Act authorized an original term of 28 years and a renewal term of an additional 28 years, 8 if application for the renewal term was made "within one year prior to the expiration of the original term.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Burne Hogarth v. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.