17 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 418
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). “1075 , as amended (formerly codified as 17 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. ), or the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 (1976 Act), 90 Stat.”
Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990). “1075 , 17 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1976 ed.), provided authors a 28-year initial term of copyright protection plus a 28-year renewal term.”
Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973). “I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution. Second, petitioners claim that the state statute interferes with the implementation of federal policies inherent in the federal copyright statutes.”
Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Colorado Magnetics, Inc., D/B/A Sound Values, Inc., 497 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1974). “Magnetics, by answer, denied copyright infringement, and alleged that its use of Marks’ copyrighted compositions is authorized by the so-called “compulsory license” provisions of the Copyright Law, namely, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1 (e) and 101(e). Additionally, and alternatively, Magnetics…”
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985). “[11] See 17 U. S. C. § 1 (e) (1976 ed.) (1909 Act).”
Encyclopaedia Britannica Educ. Corp. v. Crooks, 542 F. Supp. 1156 (W.D.N.Y. 1982). “This action was initiated before January 1, 1978, and therefore, the Copyrights Act of 1909 [the Old Act], 17 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., is applicable to all the defendants’ activities prior to this date.”
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). “1075 , 1088, 17 U.S.C. § 1 ), like the patent statutes, grants the owner exclusive rights.”
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968). “[9] If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a *395 copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these "exclusive rights," he infringes the copyright.”
United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “nent, or part thereof, that — • (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to…”
Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974). “The plaintiffs in this litigation, creators and producers of televised programs copyrighted under the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, 17 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., commenced suit in 1964 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,…”
Twentieth Century Music Corp. Et Al. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975). “1075 , as amended, 17 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., 2 gives to a copyright holder a monopoly limited to specified “exclusive” rights in his copyrighted works.”
Vmg Salsoul, LLC v. Madonna Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016). “15, 1971) (adding subsection (f) to former 17 U.S.C. § 1 ) (“does not extend to the 26 VMG SALSOUL V.”
— 17 U.S.C. § 1(a) — 2 cases
Irving Berlin, Inc. v. Daigle, 31 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1929).
Jack Adelman, Inc. v. Sonners & Gordon, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 187 (S.D.N.Y. 1934).
— 17 U.S.C. § 1(d) — 1 case
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distrib. Corp. v. Bijou Theatre Co., 3 F. Supp. 66 (D. Mass. 1933).
— 17 U.S.C. § 1(e) — 12 cases
Tempo Music, Inc., Robbins Music Corp., Remick Music Corp., & Mills Music, Inc. v. James D. Myers, 407 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1969).
Hirsch v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Cal. 1937).
Irving Berlin, Inc. v. Daigle, 31 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1929).
United States v. Bodin, 375 F. Supp. 1265 (W.D. Okla. 1974).
Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 51 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1931).
— 17 U.S.C. § 1(f) — 1 case
Indep. Tape Merch.'s Ass'n v. Creamer, 346 F. Supp. 456 (M.D. Penn. 1972).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.