Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Jewell-lasalle Realty Company v. Buck Et Al.

• 1930 • 283 U.S. 202 • Hughes Court
In the case of Jewell-LaSalle Realty Company v. Buck et al., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a copyright dispute involving radio broadcasts in hotels. The plaintiff, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), claimed that Jewell-LaSalle Realty Company had infringed upon their copyrights by playing copyrighted music over radios in its hotel without obtaining licenses from ASCAP. The defendant argued that they were merely using purchased radios to receive public...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1930
Docket: 140
283 U.S. 202
51 S. Ct. 407
75 L. Ed. 978
1931 U.S. LEXIS 140
Argued: Mar 03, 1931

Jewell-lasalle Realty Company v. Buck Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Jewell-LaSalle Realty Company v. Buck et al., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a copyright dispute involving radio broadcasts in hotels. The plaintiff, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), claimed that Jewell-LaSalle Realty Company had infringed upon their copyrights by playing copyrighted music over radios in its hotel without obtaining licenses from ASCAP. The defendant argued that they were merely using purchased radios to receive public broadcasts and not directly performing the copyrighted works themselves. However, the court sided with ASCAP stating that when a hotel uses a radio receiver to distribute music throughout its premises for entertainment purposes it is considered as "performing" under copyright law even if indirectly so through broadcasting technology. Therefore, such use requires permission from copyright holders or their representatives like ASCAP.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Jewell-LaSalle Realty Company v. Buck et al., Justice Holmes argued that the hotel's use of a radio receiver to amplify and distribute signals it received did not constitute copyright infringement. He reasoned that since anyone could receive these signals, they were essentially public property once broadcasted. The hotel was merely using technology to make them audible to its guests, which he likened to reading aloud from a copyrighted book in a public place - an act generally accepted as non-infringing on copyright laws. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of the law at this time, no unauthorized reproduction or performance had taken place by amplifying and distributing already publicly accessible radio broadcasts within their premises.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Apr 13, 1931
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms