30 Cited authorities

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
471 U.S. 539 (1985) Cited 1,215 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 629 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”
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 468 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"
Texaco Inc. v. American Geophysical Union
516 U.S. 1005 (1995) Cited 91 times
Noting that "were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder"
Rogers v. Koons
960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 282 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring a defendant to turn over infringing works "is an equitable remedy issued under the broad powers vested in a trial judge"
Baltimore Orioles v. Major League Baseball
805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986) Cited 242 times
Holding that "the [baseball] telecasts are audiovisual works, which under § 102 come within the subject matter of copyright"
Blanch v. Koons
467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 134 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Jeff Koons painting that was created, in part, through scanning the plaintiff's photograph into a computer and incorporating the scanned image into the painting was transformative because the "copyrighted work [was] used as raw material in the furtherance of distinct creative or communicative objectives"
A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. Iparadigms, LLC
562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) Cited 119 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that “loss” is broadly defined and “plainly contemplates ... costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation, including the investigation of an offense”
Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Tel., Inc.
126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 155 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding use of a poster as decoration — "a central purpose for which it was created" — not transformative
JCW Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.
482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 117 times
Holding that defendant's entire doll was only "minimally distinguishable" from plaintiff's doll, which was a combination of numerous unprotectable details such as its face and chair
Section 815 ILCS 505/1
815 ILCS 505/1 Cited 2,169 times 14 Legal Analyses
Defining "consumer" as "any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household"
Section 301 - Preemption with respect to other laws
17 U.S.C. § 301 Cited 1,408 times 20 Legal Analyses
Stating that when "legal or equitable rights ... are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"
Section 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
17 U.S.C. § 107 Cited 1,014 times 177 Legal Analyses
Designating “criticism” and “comment” as fair use
Section 815 ILCS 510/1
815 ILCS 510/1 Cited 389 times 2 Legal Analyses
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "article" means a product as distinguished from a trademark, label or distinctive dress in packaging; (2) "certification mark" means a mark used in connection with the goods or services of a person other than the certifier to indicate geographic origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of the goods or services or to indicate that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members

Games Workshop Limited v. Chapterhouse Studios LLC

30 Cited authorities

Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a 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 an online image search index was "highly transformative"

Noting that "were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder"

Holding that requiring a defendant to turn over infringing works "is an equitable remedy issued under the broad powers vested in a trial judge"

Holding that "the [baseball] telecasts are audiovisual works, which under § 102 come within the subject matter of copyright"

Holding that “loss” is broadly defined and “plainly contemplates ... costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation, including the investigation of an offense”

Holding use of a poster as decoration — "a central purpose for which it was created" — not transformative

Holding that defendant's entire doll was only "minimally distinguishable" from plaintiff's doll, which was a combination of numerous unprotectable details such as its face and chair

Defining "consumer" as "any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household"

Stating that when "legal or equitable rights ... are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright ... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State"

Designating “criticism” and “comment” as fair use