From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
Lee v. Runge
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 887, 92 S. Ct. 197, 30 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1971)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
In district court, Joyce Lee (defendant) was found to have infringed Santa Maria Runge’s (plaintiff) copyright for writing a book about face exercises based on the same ideas as Runge’s book. Lee appealed, arguing that Runge’s book was not copyrightable because Runge’s book was only a rehash of ideas within the public domain and thus lacked novelty. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the appropriate standard was originality, not novelty, and that Runge’s book met that standard. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
