Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
59,161
edits
Changes
→top: clean up & uniformity
This case arose when one of the Court's official reporters was asserting copyright protection for his annotated compilations of Supreme Court opinions. The Court distinguished between the reporter's individual work and the Justices' opinions. that statutes were never copyrighted. Based on the acknowledged and incontestable analogy with legislative acts, Wheaton held unanimously that "the law" in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted.
This case arose when one of the Court's official reporters was asserting copyright protection for his annotated compilations of Supreme Court opinions. The Court distinguished between the reporter's individual work and the Justices' opinions. that statutes were never copyrighted. Based on the acknowledged and incontestable analogy with legislative acts, Wheaton held unanimously that "the law" in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Copyright Clause]]
[[Category:Copyright Clause]]