## Facts

- Henry Wheaton, a former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, published multi-volume reports of Supreme Court cases that included the Court’s opinions plus added materials such as annotations and summaries of counsel’s arguments.
- Wheaton assigned certain asserted rights in the reports to Robert Donaldson.
- Richard Peters, Wheaton’s successor as Reporter, issued cheaper abridged publications that largely omitted counsel’s arguments and other non-opinion material, compressing prior volumes into fewer books; John Grigg was involved in publishing and selling these editions.
- Wheaton and Donaldson sued, alleging infringement of rights in Wheaton’s reports and asserting both a post-publication “common-law” literary property right and rights under federal copyright statutes.
- Peters denied infringement and argued that Wheaton had not satisfied the statutory prerequisites (e.g., registration, notice, deposit) required to obtain enforceable federal copyright protection.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal common-law copyright exists that gives authors perpetual exclusive rights in works after publication, independent of federal statute.
2. Whether the Supreme Court’s written judicial opinions may be copyrighted by a reporter or otherwise.
3. Whether any statutory copyright claim could succeed without proof of compliance with the federal copyright acts’ required formalities.

## Decision

- The Court held that there is no general federal common-law copyright in published works; post-publication exclusive rights, if any, arise only from federal statute.
- The Court held that Supreme Court opinions are not copyrightable; neither the reporter nor the Justices can confer an exclusive right in the Court’s written opinions.
- The Court ruled that statutory copyright protection is conditioned on compliance with statutory requirements and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the claimed statutory formalities had been satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- In the United States, copyright protection for published works is a statutory right; claims of perpetual exclusive rights after publication cannot rest on a nationwide federal common law.
- Common-law protection may exist for an unpublished manuscript (against unauthorized taking or publication), but publication terminates any claim to perpetual exclusivity absent statutory protection.
- Congress may grant copyright subject to conditions, and a claimant must prove compliance with statutory prerequisites (such as registration, notice, and deposit) to enforce statutory rights.
- Judicial opinions of the Supreme Court are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced; copyright cannot attach to the Court’s written opinions, though independently created reporter materials may be protectable if statutory requirements are met.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected a federal common-law theory of perpetual post-publication copyright, declared Supreme Court opinions uncopyrightable, and treated enforceable copyright in published works as dependent on strict compliance with federal statutory formalities, remanding for a determination on compliance.


Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834)