586 F. Supp. 478 - Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · 15 Cal. 3d 838 - In Re Marriage of Brown · Schenberg v. Bond · Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants · 13 Cal. 3d 349 - Smith v. Lewis
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Effect of Omission on Copyright. — With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in sections 401 through 403 from copies or phonorecord publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright in a work if— (1)the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or (2) registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered; or (3) the notice has been omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner’s authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n determining whether there has been substantial compliance with a statute, a court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Implicit in the concept of a “reasonable effort” under § 405(a)(2) is the expectation that an expenditure of time and money over and above that required in the normal course of business will be made. The evidence in the present case, however, establishes that plaintiff made no effort to add a copyright notice precisely because such an expenditure would have been required on its part. In other words, plaintiff decided to continue with business as usual until the scheduled conversion to a single board program, and decided not to make any effort whatsoever to add a copyright notice until then. Plaintiff presented no evidence to show that an unreasonable effort would have been required to reprogram the double-board version of Joker Poker to add a copyright notice. We conclude that its inaction during this period is not within the spirit of the “reasonable effort” requirement of § 405(a)(2).”
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.