This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
From 1790 to 1891, foreigners were categorically ineligible to hold U.S. copyrights.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Costco Wholesale Corporation) Position
According to Aaron M. Panner, section 602(a)(1) permits the distribution of foreign‑made copies abroad without the U.S. copyright holder forfeiting the exclusive right to distribute copies domestically.
According to Aaron M. Panner, “Made” includes the creation of the physical copy and the addition of any intellectual property rights needed for U.S. distribution.
According to Aaron M. Panner, Section 602(a)(1) is designed to permit a U.S. copyright owner to exclude legitimate copies, and Congress indicated this in the House Committee report.
According to Roy T. Englert, Jr., according to Roy T. Englert, Jr., the brief does not present a policy argument favoring foreign‑manufactured goods.
Respondent (Omega, S.A.) Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to United States, because the Copyright Act does not apply abroad, a copy must be created in the United States to be “lawfully made.”
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4ef318df3032fd54d041-r1-81892cb75c4ad1a2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.