American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
60 F.3d 913 · 1994
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2001)
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 103 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 105 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 108 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Scharffe v. Perkins · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line 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 104 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.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]ere a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The “transformative use” concept is pertinent to a court’s investigation under the first factor because it assesses the value generated by the secondary use and the means by which such value is generated. To the extent that the secondary use involves merely an untransformed duplication, the value generated by the secondary use is little or nothing more than the value that inheres in the original. Rather than making some contribution of new intellectual value and thereby fostering the advancement of the arts and sciences, an untransformed copy is likely to be used simply for the same intrinsic purpose as the original, thereby providing limited justification for a finding of fair use.... In contrast, to the extent that the secondary use “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character,” the value generated goes beyond the value that inheres in the original and “the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered.” [Citing Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579 , 114 S.Ct. at 1171 and Leval supra.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.