In Ferris v. Frohman, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a copyright dispute over a play script. Charles Frohman, a theater producer, had purchased exclusive rights to perform "Sherlock Holmes" from its author Arthur Conan Doyle but did not secure the copyrights of the characters or storylines in America before his death in 1915. Meanwhile, William Gillette adapted and performed another version of Sherlock Holmes without obtaining permission from Frohman's estate or paying any royalties. Frohman's executors sued for infringement but lost both at trial and on appeal because they could not prove ownership of an American copyright for either the original stories or Gillette’s adaptation as required by law at that time (the Copyright Act of 1909). The court held that since no evidence was presented showing that Doyle had transferred his American copyrights to Frohman before he died nor were there records proving registration and deposit copies were made according to statutory requirements; therefore, it was impossible for him to have passed them onto his executors after death. The case established important precedents regarding proof necessary for establishing ownership under American copyright law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ferris v. Frohman, 1911 argued that the plaintiff's play was not a direct copy or adaptation of the defendant's copyrighted work. The dissenting justices believed that while there were similarities between both works, these were due to them being based on common historical events and characters rather than one being copied from another. They also pointed out that copyright law should not be used to stifle creativity and innovation by preventing authors from drawing inspiration from existing works or real-life events. Furthermore, they contended that it is impossible for two people to tell the same story without some overlap in plot elements or character traits; therefore such overlaps should not automatically constitute infringement under copyright law.