Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Headline: First-sale doctrine applies to copies lawfully made abroad, allowing buyers to import and resell foreign-made copies without the copyright holder’s permission, narrowing the importation ban’s reach.
Holding:
- Allows buyers to import and resell foreign-made copies without owner permission.
- Limits copyright owners’ ability to block parallel imports and segment markets.
- Protects libraries, used-book sellers, and retailers who sell authorized foreign editions.
Summary
Background
An American textbook publisher licensed a foreign subsidiary to print lower-priced English-language editions abroad and to sell them only overseas. A Thai national who studied in the United States asked friends and family in Thailand to buy those foreign editions and mail them to him, then resold the books in the United States for profit. The publisher sued for copyright infringement, the trial jury found willful infringement and awarded statutory damages, and the Second Circuit agreed with the publisher that the “first sale” rule did not protect copies made abroad.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the statute’s phrase “lawfully made under this title” limits the long-standing first-sale rule to copies made in the United States. Looking to the statute’s text, history, common-law background, and practical consequences, the Court concluded that those words do not impose a geographic restriction and that the first-sale rule can apply to copies lawfully made abroad. The majority rejected interpretations that would let copyright owners retain perpetual downstream control simply because a copy was manufactured overseas.
Real world impact
The ruling means owners of legitimately made foreign copies may import and resell those copies in the United States without the copyright holder’s further permission. That outcome reduces a copyright owner’s ability to use import bans to enforce separate national price or distribution schemes. The Court emphasized likely effects on libraries, used-book sellers, retailers, museums, and technology companies and noted Quality King’s earlier decision narrowed the importation ban in related ways.
Dissents or concurrances
A concurrence agreed with the result but flagged that Quality King, not this decision, is chiefly responsible for narrowing import bans. A dissent argued the Court’s reading conflicts with Congress’ intent to let copyright owners block unauthorized imports and expressed concern about international trade and exhaustion rules.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?