In the case of Falk v. Robertson, the U.S Supreme Court in 1890 ruled on a dispute involving copyright law and its application to dramatic works. The plaintiff, Benjamin A. Falk, was a photographer who had taken promotional photos for an actress named Lotta Crabtree without her consent or knowledge during one of her performances. He then sold these photographs commercially without paying any royalties to Ms.Crabtree or obtaining her permission which led to this lawsuit being filed against him by John T.Robertson as trustee for Lotta Crabtree. The court held that although there were no explicit laws protecting performers from unauthorized photography at that time, it did not mean they lacked legal protection altogether under existing copyright laws meant for authors and composers of creative works such as plays and music compositions.The court reasoned that since actors like Ms.Crabtree put significant effort into creating their unique interpretations of characters in plays (which could be considered original artistic creations), they should also enjoy similar protections against unauthorized reproductions just like authors do with their written works. Therefore,the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions favoring Ms.Crabtree's claim over Mr.Falk's defense based on lack of specific legislation covering his actions.This ruling set an important precedent extending copyright protections beyond traditional forms of authorship towards other types performance arts too.

In the dissenting opinion for Falk v. Robertson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring all contracts with non-resident parties to be notarized in order to be enforceable within the state was an unconstitutional violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The dissent contended that this law discriminated against out-of-state citizens by imposing additional burdens on them which were not imposed on residents of Louisiana. They believed this violated their constitutional rights as American citizens under Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal privileges and immunities across states. Furthermore, they asserted that such laws could potentially lead to retaliatory legislation from other states and disrupt interstate commerce.