Fleet v. CBS, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Wendt v. Host International, Inc. (1997), George Downing an Individual v. Abercrombie & Fit
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 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 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Edgar v. Mite Corp. · California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra · Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. · Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all legal or equitable rights that are the equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We agree that as a general proposition Civil Code section 3344 is intended to protect rights which cannot be copyrighted and that claims made under its provisions are usually not preempted. But appellants’ analysis crumbles in the face of one obvious fact: their individual performances in the film White Dragon were copyrightable. Since their section 3344 claims seeks only to prevent CBS from reproducing and distributing their performances in the film, their claims must be preempted by federal copyright law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In this ease we are asked to decide a very narrow issue: whether an actor may bring an action for misappropriation of his or her name, image, likeness or identity under Section 3344 of the Civil Code when the only alleged exploitation occurred through the distribution of the actor’s performance in a motion picture. The trial court concluded that to the extent California law would permit such a claim, it was preempted by federal copyright law. We agree with the trial court and affirm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.