In the Kalem Company v. Harper Brothers case in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a film company had infringed upon copyright laws by creating a movie based on a book without obtaining permission from the author or publisher. The Kalem Company produced and distributed "Ben-Hur," which was adapted from Lew Wallace's novel of the same name, published by Harper Brothers. The court held that although films were not specifically mentioned in copyright law at that time, they fell under its purview as they are forms of expression akin to writing or music. Furthermore, it stated that even if no direct copying occurred (such as verbatim dialogue), infringement could still occur through non-literal copying like plot elements and character development. This ruling set an important precedent for future cases involving adaptations into different mediums.

In the dissenting opinion for Kalem Company v. Harper Brothers, Justice Holmes argued that there was no direct infringement of copyright in this case because the film company did not reproduce any text from the copyrighted novel "Ben-Hur." Instead, they created a new work inspired by it. He believed that if every story or idea could be copyrighted and protected to such an extent, it would limit creativity and progress in arts and literature. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were many other stories with similar themes as "Ben-Hur" which had not been considered infringements on each other's copyrights. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision to hold Kalem Company liable for indirect infringement based solely on their use of a similar theme or plotline.