Meeropol v. Nizer’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Meeropol v. Nizer (1977), New Era Publications International, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co. (1989)
16 federal appellate ·
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 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Ross v. Bernhard
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The alleged standard rule in the publishing industry in the United States that more than 300 words of a copyrighted work does not qualify as a fair use, is not dispositive of a fair use question. Fair use is a legal question to be determined by the court not by alleged industry practice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meeropol v. Nizer“It is not a case where abbreviated or select passages are taken from particular letters; but the entire letters are taken, and those of most interest and value to the public____ If it had been the case of a fair and bona fide abridgement of the work of the plaintiffs, it might have been admitted of a very different consideration.”
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.