Legal Opinion
Dymow v. Bolton
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 5, 1926No. 269PublishedCited by 92 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It has been pointed out that the protection of the statute extends to “all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted,” which phrase presupposes that there may be much in what is popularly called a copyrighted work as to which the statute affords no protection. Eggers v. Sun, etc., Corp. (C. C. A.) 263 F. 373.
The same ease shows that infringement is not a statutory phrase, but that by repeated decisions infringement of copyright is judicially held to consist in the copying of some substantial and material part of that aS”to which the statute…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kalem Co. v. Harper BrothersSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Holmes v. HurstSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- King Features Syndicate v. FleischerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Dam v. Kirk La Shelle Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
- Eichel v. MarcinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1913
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by92 opinions
- Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Apple Computer, Inc., a California Corporation v. Franklin Computer Corporation, a Pennsylvania CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Weitzenkorn v. LesserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
87 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.