Berlin v. E. C. Publications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
329 F.2d 541 · 1964
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. (1979), Warner Bros Inc Ag Dc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc J (1983)
58 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. · Hertz v. Woodman · Columbia Broacasting System, Inc. v. Loew's Inc. · Jack Benny v. Loew's Incorporated, a Corporation, and Patrick Hamilton, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., and American Tobacco Company v. Loew's Incorporated, a Corporation, and Patrick Hamilton
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the readers of Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote’ and Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels,’ or the parodies of a modern master such as Max Beerbohm well know, many a true word is indeed spoken in jest. At the very least, where, as here, it is clear that the parody has neither the intent nor the effect of fulfilling the demand for the original,, and where the parodist does not appropriate a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to ‘recall or conjure up’ the object of his satire, a finding of infringement would be improper.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e doubt that even so eminent a composer as plaintiff Irving Berlin should be permitted to claim a property interest in iambic pentameter.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Gaye · Williams v. Gaye“[C]ourts in passing upon particular claims of infringement must occasionally subordinate the copyright holder's interest in a maximum financial return to the greater public interest in the development of art, science and industry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Gaye · Williams v. Gaye
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.