How cited: Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc. · Go Syfert

Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc. (1981)

green · 70 citation events across 25 courts. Showing the 38 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198220042026
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Copyright Act[ ].” Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1981).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1981).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
P’ship, 102 F.App’x 374, 378 (5th Cir.2004) (unpublished) (per curiam) (citing Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det.
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (applying Georgia law to a license agreement and noting that “application of Georgia rules to determine parties’ contractual intent is not preempted by either copyright act nor does their application violate federal copyright policy”); see also Kennedy v. Nat’l Juvenile Detention Ass’n, 187 F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999) (“[njormal rules of contract construction are generally applied in con…
applying Georgia law to a license agreement and noting that “application of Georgia rules to determine parties’ contractual intent is not preempted by either copyright act nor does their application violate federal copyright policy”
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
The function of copyright notice is to warn off copiers, 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 (d), 405(b), 406(a); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir.1981); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276, 277 (2d Cir.1934), not to start the statute of limitations running.
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
The function of copyright notice is to warn off copiers, 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 (d), 405(b), 406(a); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir. 1981); Fleischer Studios, 12 Nos. 03-1331, 03-1461 Inc. v. Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276, 277 (2d Cir. 1934), not to start the statute of limitations running.
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Campbell, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation 1 The defendants' state law counterclaim was likewise dismissed without prejudice 2 As a general rule, state law governs the interpretation of copyright contracts, unless a particular state rule of construction would "so alter rights granted by the copyright statutes as to invade the scope of copyright law or violate its policies." Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d…
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
As a general rule, state law governs the interpretation of copyright contracts, unless a particular state rule of construction would “so alter rights granted by the copyright statutes as to invade the scope of copyright law or violate its policies.” Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981).
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 , 110 S.Ct. 1750 , 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990) (affirming without addressing this issue); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir.1981); Varon v. Santa Fe Reporter, Inc. et al. 218 U.S.P.Q. 716 , 717, 1982 WL 1289 (D.N.M.1982).
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 , 110 S.Ct. 1750 , 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990) (affirming without addressing this issue); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir.1981); Varon v. Santa Fe Reporter, Inc. et al. 218 U.S.P.Q. 716 , 717, 1982 WL 1289 (D.N.M.1982).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Id. at 481, 486 .
Quote Authority · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) ("mere breach of covenant may support a claim of damages for breach of contract but will not disturb the remaining rights and obligations under the license including the authority to use the copyrighted material"); see also 3 M.
"mere breach of covenant may support a claim of damages for breach of contract but will not disturb the remaining rights and obligations under the license including the authority to use the copyrighted material"
Quote Authority · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (“mere breach of covenant may support a claim of damages for breach of contract but will not disturb the remaining rights and obligations under the license including the authority to use the copyrighted material”); see also 3 M.
“mere breach of covenant may support a claim of damages for breach of contract but will not disturb the remaining rights and obligations under the license including the authority to use the copyrighted material”
Rule Authority · Md. · 2 citations in this opinion
Credit Corp., 866 F.2d 396, 398 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 815 , 110 S.Ct. 64 , 107 L.Ed.2d 31 (1989); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981); Roadway Package Sys., Inc. v. Kayser, 257 F.3d 287, 293-94 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1020 , 122 S.Ct. 545 , 151 L.Ed.2d 423 (2001); Jones v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.
Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1981).
green Long v. Cordain (2014)
Rule Authority · Colo. Ct. App.
State law is not displaced merely because the contract relates to intellectual property."); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 1981) (courts should apply state law when interpreting contracts, even where the subject matter of the contract is a copyright); Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150, 158 (2d Cir.1968) (applying state law to a contract dispute involving the assignment of rights granted under federal copyright law).
courts should apply state law when interpreting contracts, even where the subject matter of the contract is a copyright
Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.
Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick Intern., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir., Unit B 1981) ,(“A choice of law provision, there *672 fore, merely designates the state whose law is to be applied to the extent its use is not preempted by nor contrary to the policies of the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts”); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 229 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
This Court finds, however, that the private agreement between two parties — which does not affect the movement of the Picture into the public domain once the initial and renewal terms have expired — does not “alter rights granted by the copyright statutes as to invade the scope of copyright law or violate its policies.” Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981) (citing Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150, 153 (2d Cir.), …
Rule Authority · E.D. La.
In Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. 1981), the court was faced with a choice of law provision in a copyright licensing agreement which specified that Georgia law would be applicable.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
To demonstrate that ABC’s interpretation of the licensing agreement is preempted by the Copyright Act, Angel Music would have to show that this interpretation of incidental recording rights would “invade the scope of copyright law or violate its policies.” Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981).
Rule Authority · D. Me.
See Bartsch v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150, 153 (2nd Cir.1968); Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981); De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 , 76 S.Ct. 974 , 100 L.Ed. 1415 (1956).
green Loeb-Defever v. Mako (2023)
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479 , 482–83 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981).
Cited (see also) · 9th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 , 752 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 1981), and NIMMER & NIMMER, supra, &#167 12.01[A], at 12-8 n.19); I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 , 774 n.4 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing NIMMER & NIMMER, supra, &#167 12.01[A], at 12-8 & n.19). 10 In Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990), we held that the Copyright Act permits a copyrigh…
Cited (see also) · 9th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 , 752 n. 2 (11th Cir.1997) (citing Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981), and Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 12.01[A], at 12-8 n.19); I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 , 774 n. 4 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, § 12.01[A], at 12-8 & n.19). .
green Graham v. James (1998)
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see also
However, “[i]f the nature of a licensee’s violation consists of a failure to satisfy a condition to the license ..., it follows that the rights dependant upon satisfaction of such condition have not been effectively licensed, and therefore, any use by the licensee is without authority from the licensor and may therefore;, constitute an infringement of copyright.” Id. at 10-121 (citations omitted); see also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (…
green Graham v. James (1998)
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see also
However, "[i]f the nature of a licensee's violation consists of a failure to satisfy a condition to the license ..., it follows that the rights dependant upon satisfaction of such condition have not been effectively licensed, and therefore, any use by the licensee is without authority from the licensor and may therefore, constitute an infringement of copyright." Id. at 10-121 (citations omitted); see also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5…
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov.1981). 8 .
Cited · 5th Cir. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov.1981) 8 Lulirama also contends that summary judgment was improper because the district court stayed discovery and therefore denied Lulirama the opportunity to discover evidence that would create fact issues as to its copyright infringement claims.
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir.1981) (state law rules of contract construction not preempted by federal law; however, application of state law to supply implied terms in copyright license would raise preemption question).
green Johnson v. Jones (1995)
Cited (see also) · E.D. Mich. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
Nimmer, at 12-8 n. 19, citing Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 826 , 89 S.Ct. 86 , 21 L.Ed.2d 96 (1968); see also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479 (5th Cir.1981).
Cited · D. Mass. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 484 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981) (noting that “subject to” is ambiguous in this context); cf. Mass. Mun.
noting that “subject to” is ambiguous in this context
Cited · D.D.C. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc. , 661 F.2d 479 , 484 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (noting that "subject to" is ambiguous in this context); cf. Mass. Mun.
noting that "subject to" is ambiguous in this context
Cited (see also) · W.D. Pa. · signal: see also
March 7, 1996) (determining whether the Copyright Act preempts state contract law before deciding the choice of law issue); see also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981) (holding that “[a] choice of law provision [...] merely designates the state whose law is to be applied to the extent its use is not preempted by nor contrary to the policies of the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts.”).
Cited (see also) · D.P.R. · signal: see also
However, “[i]f the nature of a licensee’s violation consists of a failure to satisfy a condition to the license ..., it follows that the rights dependant upon satisfaction of such condition have not been effectively licensed, and therefore, any use by the licensee is without authority from the licensor and may therefore, constitute an infringement of copyright.” Id. at 10-121 (citations omitted); see also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int'l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483-84 (5…
Cited · Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick Int’l, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 483 (5th Cir.1981); SQL Solutions, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 1991 WL 626458 , at *3.
Cited (see also) · S.D. Tex. · signal: see also
See also Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479 , 486 n. 6 (5th Cir.1981).
Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: accord
Accord, Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc., 661 F.2d 479, 487 (5th Cir. 1981).