In the 1892 case of Grant v. Walter, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving copyright law. The plaintiff, Ulysses S. Grant's heirs, had given permission to one publisher to print his memoirs and then later gave another publisher permission to print an abridged version of those same memoirs. When the first publisher sued for infringement, claiming exclusive rights under their contract with Grant's heirs, the court sided with them and upheld their claim. The court held that while authors have a right to create derivative works based on their original creations (such as translations or adaptations), they lose this right once they grant an exclusive license for publication unless explicitly reserved in writing within said agreement. In other words, by granting an "exclusive" license without any reservations about creating future derivative works like abridgements or condensations - which are considered separate copyrights - authors effectively give up control over these potential derivatives. This decision set important precedent regarding interpretation of copyright licenses and author’s rights in relation to derivative works under US Copyright Law.

In the dissenting opinion for Grant v. Walter, the justice argued that a copyright owner's exclusive rights should not be limited to only those territories under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of registration. The majority ruling held that an author who registered their work in 1867 could not claim copyright infringement against someone publishing their work without permission in Colorado, which became a state in 1876. However, the dissenting justice contended this interpretation was too narrow and did not align with the intent of copyright law - to protect authors' rights and encourage creativity by providing them control over how their works are used. They believed these protections should extend automatically to new states or territories as they join the Union rather than requiring re-registration every time U.S territory expands.