In the case of Bolles v. Outing Company, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a copyright infringement had occurred. The plaintiff, Bolles, claimed that his copyrighted map had been reproduced without permission by the defendant, Outing Company. The court found in favor of the defendant on two grounds: firstly because there were significant differences between both maps and secondly because it was determined that facts cannot be copyrighted - only their unique presentation or arrangement can be protected under copyright law. In this instance, while certain elements such as names and locations were identical (as they are factual), other aspects like style and arrangement differed significantly enough to rule out any infringement claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Bolles v. Outing Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Bolles was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of copyright law. The dissent emphasized that while Mr. Bolles' work may have been similar in nature and content to previous works published by Outing Company, this did not necessarily constitute a violation of copyright laws as long as his work was original and not directly copied from those previously published materials. It further contended that the burden of proof should be on Outing Company to demonstrate clear evidence of plagiarism rather than on Mr. Bolles to prove his innocence or originality, which is inherently more difficult task given the subjective nature of such judgement calls about similarity between two pieces of creative work.