Walt Disney Company v. Carl Powell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff could not receive a separate statutory damage award for each, separate picture of Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse in different poses, because each picture did not have independent economic value
• stating that “separate copyrights are not distinct works unless they can ‘live their own copyright life’”
• vacating a damages award that “mistakenly focus[ed] on the number of infringements rather than on the number of works infringed”
• extending a permanent injunction to copyrighted characters that were not expressly litigated in the underlying action
• treating individual photo- graphs of same subject as compilation, even though individu- ally registrable
• asking whether certain cop- yrighted materials are “distinct, viable works with separate economic value and copyright lives” to determine the scope of available statutory damages under § 504(c)(1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).