holding that a licensed derivative work could not be reproduced or distributed absent rights to reproduce and distribute the portions of the pre-existing work that were incorporated into the derivative work
How later courts described this case
- holding that a licensed derivative work could not be reproduced or distributed absent rights to reproduce and distribute the portions of the pre-existing work that were incorporated into the derivative work
- recognizing that "fair use is more likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works” and that a “motion picture based on a fictional short story obviously falls into the latter category”
- stating that an author may copyright a novel that contains story elements found in the public domain but only his original contributions are entitled to protection
- upholding lower court’s finding that the first factor weighed against a finding of fair use where the defendant’s re-release of the motion picture “Rear Window” did not fall into any of the categories listed in the introduction of § 107
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring in the judgment.
Although I am not convinced, as the Court seems to be, that the decision in Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U. S. 373 (1960), was required by the Copyright Act, neither am I convinced that it was an impermissible construction of the statute. And because Miller Music, in my view, requires the result reached by the Court in this case, I concur in the judgment of affirmance.