Marcus v. Rowley’s Empirical Analysis
695 F.2d 1171 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Weissmann v. Freeman (1989), Pacific and Southern Company Inc Wxia-Tv v. Duncan Tv (1984)
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe · 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 · Gay v. Parpart · Baker v. Selden
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fair use is most often defined as the ‘privilege in others than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner . . . . ’ Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc. 366 F.2d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 1966), cert, denied, 385 U.S. 1009 , 87 S.Ct. 714 , 12 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967). [Citations omitted.] This doctrine was judicially created to ‘avoid rigid application’ of the copyright laws when that application would defeat the law’s original purpose which was the fostering of creativity. Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 6521 F.2d 57 , 60 (2d Cir. 1980). Because the doctrine was developed with a view to the introduction of flexibility and equity into the copyright laws, it has evolved in such a manner as to elude precise definition. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. 659 F.2d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 1981), cert, granted, 457 U.S. 1116 , 102 S.Ct. 2926 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1328 (1982). It is, as Professor Nimmer has stated, a ‘most obscure doctrine.’ 3 Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.05 at 13-54.1 (1982). “The doctrine of fair use was a judicially articulated concept until Congress recognized its importance and incorporated it into section 107 of the revised Copyright Act. The legislative history states that ‘[s]ection 107 is a restatement of this judicially developed doctrine—it neither enlarges nor changes it in any way.’ 122 Cong. Rec. 3144 (1976) ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted works; (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....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a finding that the alleged infringers copied the material to use it for the same intrinsic purpose for which the copyright owner intended it to be used is strong indicia of no fair use.”
3 later decisions 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.