Andrew F. Ehat v. Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Dba Modern Microfilm Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims under Utah law were preempted because they sought to provide relief for reproduction and distribution of materials “within the subject matter of copyright”
• preempting a claim of reproduction and interference “with an intangible literary or artistic property right” as the equivalent of copyright
• reversing district court and concluding that Utah state law claims, including claim for unjust enrichment, were preempted under the Copyright Act
• affirming finding that copyright law preempted conversion claim “to recover for damage flowing from [the] reproduction and distribution” of the plaintiff’s notes, because “[s]uch reproduction interferes with an intangible literary or artistic property right equivalent to copyright”
• material “f[ell] within the subject matter of copyright” even though it “could not be copyrighted”
• preemption of state law claim required when plaintiff does not seek to recover for physical deprivation of tangible property but for the damages flowing from their reproduction and distribution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).