In the 1913 U.S. Supreme Court case Weinman v. De Palma, the court ruled in favor of plaintiff Weinman who had sued De Palma for copyright infringement over a play script. The defendant, De Palma, argued that he did not infringe on any copyrights because his work was an independent creation and bore only incidental resemblances to the copyrighted work by Weinman. However, after comparing both works side-by-side and considering expert testimony regarding their similarities and differences, it was determined that there were too many substantial similarities between them to be coincidental or accidental. Therefore, it was concluded that De Palma's work must have been derived from Weinman's original piece rather than being independently created as claimed by him.

In the dissenting opinion for Weinman v. De Palma, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign-built yachts violated principles of international law and comity. The dissenting justices believed that once a vessel had been admitted into another country under its laws and paid any required duties, it should be considered as much part of that country's property as if it were built there. They contended that imposing additional taxes based solely on where the yacht was constructed constituted an unjustifiable interference with international commerce and navigation rights. Furthermore, they asserted this could lead to retaliatory measures from other nations against U.S.-built vessels abroad which would harm American interests in turn.