Blanch v. Koons’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.3d 244 · 2006
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Peter Letterese & Associates, Inc. v. World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, International (2008), Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. (2014)
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 20 U.S.C. § 951 (Arts and Humanities Act of 1980)
Relies on Scharffe v. Perkins · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. · Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In considering the fourth factor, our concern is not whether the secondary use suppresses or even destroys the market for the original work or its potential derivatives, but whether the secondary use usurps the market of the original work. The market for potential derivative uses includes only those that creators of original works would in general develop or license others to develop.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he central purpose of this investigation is to see ... whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation ... or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cariou v. Prince · Oyewole v. Ora
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.