Hays v. Sony Corporation of America’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.2d 412 · 1988
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. (1990), Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A. (1989)
68 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 302 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 412 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 502 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. · Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc.
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to be preserved, an argument must be pressed, and not merely intimated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Rule 11 defines a new form of legal malpractice”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[u]ntil 1976, the statutory term 'work made for hire' was not defined, and some courts had adopted a ‘teacher exception’ whereby academic writing was presumed not to be work made for hire. The authority for this conclusion was in fact scanty, ... but it was scanty not because the merit of the exception was doubted, but because, on the contrary, virtually no one questioned that the academic author was entitled to copyright his writings. Although college and university teachers do academic writing as a part of their employment responsibilities and use their employer's paper, copier, secretarial staff, and (often) computer facilities in that writing, the universal assumption and practice was that (in the absence of an explicit agreement as to who had the right to copyright) the right to copyright such writing belonged to the teacher rather than to the college or university. There were good reasons for the assumption. A college or university does not supervise its faculty in the preparation of academic books and articles, and is poorly equipped to exploit their writings, whether through publication or otherwise; we may set to one side cases where a school directs a teacher to prepare teaching materials and then directs its other teachers to use the materials too.”
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.