Rodney Lewis Cockhren v. State of Iowa

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that motion picture may infringe copyright in book by using its “unique setting, characters, plot, and sequence of events”
• holding that an author “may receive protection only for his original additions,” not “elements . . . already in the public domain”
• holding that a licensed derivative work could not be reproduced or distributed absent rights to reproduce and distribute the portions of the pre-existing work that were incorporated into the derivative work
• noting that a motion, picture may infringe a book by using “the story’s unique setting, characters, plot, and sequence of events”
• holding renewal rights in pre-1978 works require Court to “look to the language of and case law interpreting § 24”
• stating that an author may copyright a novel that contains story elements found in the public domain but only his original contributions are entitled to protection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).