40 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,111 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,221 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co.
499 U.S. 340 (1991) Cited 3,365 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding "it is beyond dispute that compilations of facts are within the subject matter of copyright" even though "copyright protects only the author's original contributions—not the facts or information conveyed"
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
471 U.S. 539 (1985) Cited 1,214 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 967 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 628 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 1,970 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on "conclusory allegations" or "unsupported speculation"
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 738 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
Stewart v. Abend
495 U.S. 207 (1990) Cited 286 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that an author "may receive protection only for his original additions," not "elements ... already in the public domain"
Castle Rock Entertain. v. Carol Publish. Group
150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 412 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fourth factor favored the plaintiffs, who produced a television show, because the defendants, who had produced a trivia book about that show, had entered a market that the plaintiffs might wish to enter
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,589 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
17 U.S.C. § 504 Cited 3,597 times 55 Legal Analyses
Stating that, where "infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000"
Section 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
17 U.S.C. § 107 Cited 1,011 times 177 Legal Analyses
Designating “criticism” and “comment” as fair use
Section 113 - Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
17 U.S.C. § 113 Cited 55 times 8 Legal Analyses
Stating that the moral rights provisions added by VARA shall not apply where "the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610 of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date . . ."

Fitzgerald v. CBS Corporation

40 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding "it is beyond dispute that compilations of facts are within the subject matter of copyright" even though "copyright protects only the author's original contributions—not the facts or information conveyed"

Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Holding that one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on "conclusory allegations" or "unsupported speculation"

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding that an author "may receive protection only for his original additions," not "elements ... already in the public domain"

Holding that the fourth factor favored the plaintiffs, who produced a television show, because the defendants, who had produced a trivia book about that show, had entered a market that the plaintiffs might wish to enter

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Stating that, where "infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000"

Designating “criticism” and “comment” as fair use