Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 F.3d 317 - Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc.

Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

59 F.3d 317 · 1995

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
November 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Murray Hill Publications, Inc. v. ABC Communications, Inc. (2001), Agee L&h v. Paramount Communications Inc Tv II (1997)

8 federal appellate · 4 district ·

1801995200020102020decided

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. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 112 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 114 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Bates v. State Bar · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. · PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc. · Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd.

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “has alleged no facts suggesting that [defendant] “deliberately engaged in a deceptive commercial practice” designed to deceive the public as to the source of the product. [Where] [t]here is no allegation that [defendant] intentionally used [plaintiffs work] to deceive the public, nor is there any factual allegation that the public was in any way confused as to the source of the [work] as a result of [defendant’s] failure to attribute that [work] to [plaintiff] ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer or ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorec-ords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[s]ubject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords....”
    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.