Weissmann v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
868 F.2d 1313 · 1989
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc. (2001), Rogers v. Koons (1992)
46 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`use is for the same intrinsic purpose as[the copyright holder's] ... such use seriously weakens a claimed fair use.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] writer's attribution of the work to herself alone is persuasive proof ... that she intended this particular piece to represent her own individual authorship' and is ‘prima facie proof that [the] work was not intended to be joint.'”
2 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.