motion pictures

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.

Respondents Grokster, Ltd. and StreamCast Networks, Inc. distribute free software products that enable computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. Grokster's software employs FastTrack technology while StreamCast distributes Morpheus software that relies on Gnutella technology. Users of either product can send requests for files directly to the computers of others on the network, with results communicated back and files downloaded directly from peers' computers without any central server intercepting the content. A group of copyright holders including motion picture studios, recording companies, songwriters, and music publishers, referred to collectively as MGM, sued Grokster and StreamCast in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. MGM alleged that the companies knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act. MGM commissioned a statistician to conduct a systematic search, and his study showed that nearly 90% of the files available for download on the FastTrack system were copyrighted works. Well over 100 million copies of the software in question are known to have been downloaded, and billions of files are shared across the FastTrack and Gnutella networks each month. Grokster and StreamCast concede the infringement in most downloads, and it is uncontested that they are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files. From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance. MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software. After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitation of copyright infringement, StreamCast gave away a software program of a kind known as OpenNap, designed as compatible with the Napster program and open to Napster users for downloading files from other Napster and OpenNap users' computers. The evidence that Grokster sought to capture the market of former Napster users is sparser but revealing. Grokster launched its own OpenNap system called Swaptor and inserted digital codes into its Web site so that computer users using Web search engines to look for "Napster" or "[f]ree filesharing" would be directed to the Grokster Web site. StreamCast monitored both the number of users downloading its OpenNap program and the number of music files they downloaded. It also used the resulting OpenNap network to distribute copies of the Morpheus software and to encourage users to adopt it. Internal company documents indicate that StreamCast hoped to attract large numbers of former Napster users if that company was shut down by court order or otherwise, and that StreamCast planned to be the next Napster. Finally, there is no evidence that either company made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files. Grokster and StreamCast receive no revenue from users, who obtain the software itself for nothing. Instead, both companies generate income by selling advertising space, and they stream the advertising to Grokster and Morpheus users while they are employing the programs. After discovery, the parties on each side of the case cross-moved for summary judgment. The court nonetheless granted summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast as to any liability arising from distribution of the then current versions of their software. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., an academic textbook publisher, often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Wiley Asia rights to publish, print, and sell foreign editions of Wiley's English language textbooks abroad. Each copy states that it is authorized for sale only in particular regions outside the United States and may not be exported without permission. Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, moved to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics at Cornell University on a Thai government scholarship. While studying, Kirtsaeng asked friends and family in Thailand to purchase copies of these foreign edition textbooks at low prices in Thai book shops and to mail them to him. Kirtsaeng sold the imported books in the United States, reimbursed his family and friends for their purchases, and retained the profit after successfully completing his undergraduate and doctoral programs. In 2008 Wiley filed a federal lawsuit against Kirtsaeng alleging that his unauthorized importation and resale of the books infringed Wiley's exclusive right to distribute copies under 17 U.S.C. §106(3) and the import prohibition in §602(a)(1). The District Court rejected Kirtsaeng's assertion of the first sale defense. The jury found that Kirtsaeng had willfully infringed eight of Wiley's copyrighted titles and assessed statutory damages of $600,000. A split panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment that the first sale doctrine does not apply to copies of American copyrighted works manufactured abroad. The Supreme Court granted Kirtsaeng's petition for certiorari to consider the question in light of differing views among the Circuits.

In 1969, a group of British writers and performers known as Monty Python entered into a scriptwriters’ agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation. Under the agreement, the group wrote and delivered scripts for thirty-minute programs in the series Monty Python’s Flying Circus. The agreement set out a detailed procedure for script alterations prior to recording. BBC retained final authority, but only minor changes could be made without prior consultation. The agreement provided that the group retained all rights in the script not granted to BBC. Nothing in the agreement entitled BBC to alter a program once it had been recorded, though BBC could license transmission of the recordings in overseas territories. In October 1973, Time-Life Films acquired the right to distribute the Monty Python series in the United States. Time-Life was permitted to edit the programs only for insertion of commercials, applicable censorship or governmental rules, and National Association of Broadcasters and time-segment requirements. In July 1975, ABC agreed with Time-Life to broadcast two ninety-minute specials each comprising three thirty-minute Monty Python programs that had not previously been shown in the United States. Correspondence between BBC and Monty Python’s British representative in September 1975 reflected the assumption that ABC would broadcast each program in its entirety. ABC broadcast the first special on October 3, 1975. Monty Python did not see a tape of the broadcast until late November 1975. The group found that twenty-four minutes of the original ninety minutes had been omitted, producing discontinuity and mutilation. After learning that ABC planned to broadcast the second special on December 26, 1975, the group attempted without success to negotiate a delay so that it could view the program. On December 15, 1975, Monty Python filed suit in the Southern District of New York to enjoin the broadcast and for damages. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lasker found that the editing had impaired the integrity of the work and caused irreparable injury. The judge denied a preliminary injunction because of uncertainty over copyright ownership in the recorded programs, questions whether BBC and Time-Life were indispensable parties, the financial loss ABC would suffer if enjoined a week before the scheduled broadcast, and the plaintiffs’ somewhat disturbing casualness in pursuing the matter. The district court instead required ABC to broadcast a disclaimer during the December 26 special. On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit stayed the disclaimer order and permitted only a limited legend at the beginning of the broadcast. The court heard argument on April 13, 1976, and enjoined any further broadcast of edited Monty Python programs pending decision.