In the American Lithographic Company v. Werckmeister case of 1910, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a copyright dispute involving lithographs and photographs. The plaintiff, Mr. Werckmeister, had copyrighted his painting in Germany before having it photographed and printed as lithographs by the defendant company in America without his permission or knowledge. He sued for damages under U.S copyright law which protected foreign works if they were registered with the Library of Congress prior to publication abroad - something he hadn't done due to unawareness about this requirement. The court held that while ignorance of law is not an excuse for non-compliance, there was no clear evidence showing that copies were made before registration at Library of Congress (which he did after discovering infringement). Therefore, it could not be conclusively established whether violation occurred pre or post-registration. However, since Mr.Werckmeister didn’t provide any notice on each copy regarding its copyright status (as required by US Copyright Act), all copies distributed without such notice lost their protection rights making them public property irrespective of when they were produced. Thus,the court concluded that even though copying someone's work without consent constitutes infringement generally; here because statutory requirements weren't met fully by plaintiff,his claim couldn't succeed entirely against defendant’s actions.

The dissenting opinion in the American Lithographic Company v. Werckmeister case argued that copyright protection should extend to photographs of works of art, even if those works are not original creations. The justice contended that a photograph is an independent work and its reproduction without permission infringes on the rights of the photographer, regardless of whether or not it depicts another copyrighted work. They further asserted that denying photographers this right would discourage them from producing high-quality reproductions and thus hinder public access to fine arts. This view diverges from the majority's stance which held that only original artistic expressions can be protected under copyright law, ruling against extending such protections to mere reproductions like photographs.