Also known as: Copyright Clause · IP Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional objective authorizing Congress to grant limited exclusive rights to authors and inventors. The objective advances knowledge and technological development by balancing incentives for creation against public access to ideas and information.
Congress enacts a statute granting authors exclusive rights for limited times. Author Alice sues publisher Bob for reproducing her book without permission. The court upholds the law because it promotes the progress of science by securing exclusive rights to writings.
Penelope Price compiles a rural telephone directory with factual listings. A rival publishes the same facts without copying her original selection or arrangement. The court holds that the rival may use the facts because copyright protects only original expression and thereby promotes progress by allowing others to build on raw information.
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., is a certified public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas. As a condition of its monopoly franchise, state regulation requires Rural to issue an updated telephone directory annually. Rural's directory consists of white pages listing subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers in alphabetical order, along with yellow pages featuring classified advertisements. Feist Publications, Inc., specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering larger geographical ranges than typical local directories. Feist's 1983 directory encompasses eleven telephone service areas in fifteen counties and contains 46,878 white pages listings. To compile its directory, Feist approached each of the eleven telephone companies operating in northwest Kansas and offered to pay for the right to use their white pages listings. Of the eleven companies, only Rural refused to license its listings. Feist then copied 1,309 listings from Rural's 1982-1983 white pages after first removing several thousand outside its geographic range and verifying the remaining data through additional investigation that added street addresses to many entries. Four of the copied listings were fictitious entries that Rural had inserted to detect copying. Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court granted summary judgment to Rural. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
View casePilar Pena designs an unpatented boat hull. A state law prohibits competitors from using a direct-molding process to copy the hull. The court invalidates the law because it creates an impermissible state monopoly that conflicts with the federal balance between innovation incentives and free competition.
In September 1976, petitioner Bonito Boats, Inc., a Florida corporation, developed a hull design for a fiberglass recreational boat which it marketed under the trade name Bonito Boat Model 5VBR. Designing the boat hull required substantial effort on the part of Bonito. A set of engineering drawings was prepared, from which a hardwood model was created. The hardwood model was then sprayed with fiberglass to create a mold, which then served to produce the finished fiberglass boats for sale. The 5VBR was placed on the market sometime in September 1976. There is no indication in the record that a patent application was ever filed for protection of the utilitarian or design aspects of the hull, or for the process by which the hull was manufactured. The 5VBR was favorably received by the boating public, and a broad interstate market developed for its sale. In May 1983, after the Bonito 5VBR had been available to the public for over six years, the Florida Legislature enacted Fla. Stat. §559.94 (1987). The statute makes it unlawful for any person to use the direct molding process to duplicate, for the purpose of sale, any manufactured vessel hull or component part of a vessel made by another without the written permission of that other person. The statute also makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly sell a vessel hull or component part of a vessel duplicated in violation of the statute. Damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees are made available to any person who suffers injury or damage as the result of a violation of the statute. The statute was made applicable to vessel hulls or component parts duplicated through the use of direct molding after July 1, 1983. On December 21, 1984, Bonito filed this action in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. The complaint alleged that respondent Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, had violated the Florida statute by using the direct molding process to duplicate the Bonito 5VBR fiberglass hull, and had knowingly sold such duplicates in violation of the Florida statute. Bonito sought a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting Thunder Craft from continuing to unlawfully duplicate and sell Bonito Boat hulls or components, as well as an accounting of profits, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that under this Court’s decisions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., the Florida statute conflicted with federal patent law and was therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. The trial court granted respondent’s motion, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. On appeal, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ conclusion that the Florida law impermissibly interfered with the scheme established by the federal patent laws. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
View casePavel Petrov records a commercial parody of a copyrighted song. The original rights holder sues for infringement. The court finds fair use because the parody transforms the work and serves the constitutional goal of promoting progress through criticism and commentary.
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman" and assigned their rights in it to respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Acuff-Rose registered the song for copyright protection. Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs, collectively known as 2 Live Crew, wrote a song in 1989 entitled "Pretty Woman," which Campbell described in an affidavit as intended through comical lyrics to satirize the original work. On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff-Rose that the group had written a parody of the song, that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew's song. Acuff-Rose's agent refused permission. In June or July 1989, 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of "Pretty Woman" in a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna Be." The albums and compact discs identify the authors of "Pretty Woman" as Orbison and Dees and its publisher as Acuff-Rose. Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody could be a fair use.
View casePearl Porter publishes a book explaining a new accounting method and includes blank forms. A competitor copies the forms but not the explanatory text. The court holds that the forms are not copyrightable because they embody the method itself rather than original expression that advances science.
In 1859 Charles Selden took the steps necessary to obtain a copyright for a book entitled “Selden’s Condensed Ledger, or Bookkeeping Simplified,” whose purpose was to exhibit and explain a distinctive system of bookkeeping. In 1860 and 1861 he secured copyrights for additional books that contained improvements and additions to the same system. Following Selden’s death, the complainant, as his testator’s representative, filed a bill against Baker alleging infringement of these copyrights. Baker denied in his answer that Selden had authored the books, denied the infringement, and maintained that the matter was not a proper subject for copyright. The parties introduced proofs, exhibited the complainant’s books and those sold by the defendant before an examiner, and presented testimony from witnesses on both sides. The circuit court rendered a decree for the complainant, from which the defendant appealed. The copyrighted materials consist of an introductory essay explaining the bookkeeping system together with annexed forms or blanks made up of ruled lines and headings that illustrate the system and show its practical application. The system produces the same results as double-entry bookkeeping but displays the operations of a day, week, or month on a single page or on two facing pages. Baker employs a similar plan for achieving equivalent results, although he arranges the columns differently and uses different headings. The complainant’s evidence is directed principally at establishing that Baker utilizes the identical system explained and illustrated in Selden’s books. The central factual question presented is whether Selden, through the copyrights on his explanatory books, obtained an exclusive right to the bookkeeping system itself.
View casePhoebe Park's news service gathers and distributes current events. A competitor copies the factual reports and resells them. The court rejects a property claim in the news itself because facts are not created by the reporter and granting exclusivity would hinder rather than promote the progress of science.
The Associated Press is a cooperative organization incorporated under New York law. Its members are proprietors or representatives of about 950 daily newspapers. It gathers news worldwide through its own correspondents, exchanges with members, and other means at an annual cost of approximately $3,500,000 assessed upon the members. Each member agrees that news received through the service is for exclusive publication in a designated newspaper and place. No other use is permitted. No member shall furnish the news in advance of publication to any non-member. Each member also supplies its local news exclusively to the Associated Press. International News Service is a New Jersey corporation engaged in gathering and selling news to approximately 400 subscribing newspapers under contracts. Its annual operating cost exceeds $2,000,000. The two organizations compete directly in the distribution of news throughout the United States. The newspapers they serve likewise compete in their respective districts. International News Service obtained Associated Press news by copying from bulletin boards and early editions of newspapers published by Associated Press members on the East Coast. It transmitted the material by telegraph to its own western subscribers for publication. It sometimes rewrote the dispatches while using the same facts. It also obtained news before publication by bribing employees of Associated Press member newspapers and by inducing members to violate the by-laws. The bill was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction against bribing employees and inducing by-law violations. It declined to enjoin the copying from bulletins and early editions. The Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the existing injunction. On the complainant's appeal, it modified the decree to add an injunction against bodily taking of the news until its commercial value as news had passed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. The clause permits Congress to promote progress through dissemination as well as creation. Historical practice allowed copyright to attach upon publication, and courts have recognized that incentives for distribution serve the constitutional objective.
No. The clause establishes a federal balance that preempts state laws granting additional monopolies on unpatented or uncopyrighted items. Such laws undermine the constitutional goal of limited exclusivity followed by free public use.
Supporting sources
No. The clause protects only original expression. Facts and ideas remain free for others to use so that subsequent authors and inventors can build upon them and thereby advance science and the useful arts.
Supporting sources