Corbello v. DeVito’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 205 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 502 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Tw Electrical Service Inc Nn v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a joint owner grants a nonexclusive license, the licensee obtains the right to exploit the work according to the license but has no right to prevent the licensor or other joint owners from further exploiting the work directly or licensing additional third parties to exploit it. 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][2][b]. When a joint owner grants an exclusive license, however, the licensor loses the right (while the license is in effect) to exploit the work directly or even to license the work to additional third parties. Id. § 6.10[A][2][c]. Yet the exclusivity of a license granted by a joint owner does not apply against the other joint owners, who, having done nothing to alienate their own rights, may continue to exploit or further license the work. See id. § 6.10[A][2][d] (citing Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90, 100 (2d Cir.2007)). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a joint owner’s exclusive licensee has the status of a nonexclusive licensee for the purposes of standing to sue for infringement. See id. (citing Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.2008))... In the context of intellectual property, the difference between “exclusive” and “nonexclusive” licenses concerns the continuing ability of the grantor to use or further license to others the licensed property during the period the license is in effect. An “exclusive” license is “[a] license that gives the licensee the sole right to perform the licensed act ... and that prohibits the licensor f”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D] The Effect in Foreign Jurisdictions of a Unilateral License by One Joint Author A licensee who expects to exploit the licensed work only within the United States may well rely upon a nonexclusive license that he may obtain from only one of several joint owners. However, the licensee who intends to exploit the work on an international basis, as is the case for example in motion picture distribution, will find that such a license is inadequate to meet his requirements. This for the reason that in foreign jurisdictions, a license will not be valid unless all joint owners are party to it. Therefore, in general, the licensee of a single joint owner will be unable to exploit his work abroad, even though in given instances, this problem may be surmounted by legal machinery for requiring the nonconsenting joint owners to join in a license whose terms have been judicially or administratively approved.”
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.