October Term 2002 · Docket 02-428
Does a false origin claim cover creative authorship?
Dastar argues it did not mislead buyers about the source of its video. Fox claims Dastar falsely claimed authorship of the content.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Dastar argues the statute covers the physical source of goods.
Fox argues the statute covers the creative source of the content.
Dastar claims it did not mislead buyers about the source.
Fox claims Dastar falsely claimed authorship of the content.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 2, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 9-11
What each side wants
Dastar wants the Court to reject Fox's authorship claim.
Fox wants the Court to uphold the false origin claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
What each side says
Dastar argues the statute only covers the physical source of goods.
Fox argues the statute covers the creative source of the content.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
What the justices asked
Does the word origin include the concept of authorship?
Did Dastar mislead consumers about the source of the video?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 9-11
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of false advertising laws. It determines whether creators can sue for unauthorized use of their work. The outcome shapes intellectual property protections for media companies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 9-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-60 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-60
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.