Repp v. Webber

How courts have described this case

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

• alleged infringer distributed the infringing work and granted 1077, 1082 (S.D. Ohio 2003). Because Bridgeport failed to licenses to third parties to reproduce the infringing work
• “Whatever the ultimate scope of Knickerbocker, ... it is clear that it was not meant to cover cases like the present one where significant sales occurred and a party received royalties for the public distribution of an allegedly infringing product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).