Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  568 U. S. ____ (2013) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

lems and threats are purely theoretical; they are unlikely 
to reflect reality.  See also post, at 30–31. 

We  are  less  sanguine.   For  one  thing,  the  law  has  not
been settled for long in Wiley’s favor.  The Second Circuit, 
in its decision below, is the first Court of Appeals to adopt 
a  purely  geographical  interpretation.    The  Third  Circuit 
has  favored  a  nongeographical  interpretation.  Sebastian 
Int’l,  847  F.  2d  1093.  The  Ninth  Circuit  has  favored  a 
modified geographical interpretation with a nongeograph­
ical  (but  textually  unsustainable)  corollary  designed  to 
diminish the problem.  Denbicare U. S. A., 84 F. 3d 1143. 
See  supra,  at  11–12.  And  other  courts  have  hesitated  to 
adopt,  and  have  cast  doubt  upon,  the  validity  of  the  geo­
graphical  interpretation.    Pearson  Educ.,  Inc.  v.  Liu,  656 
F.  Supp.  2d  407  (SDNY  2009);  Red-Baron  Franklin  Park, 
Inc.  v.  Taito  Corp.,  No.  88–0156–A,  1988  WL  167344,  *3 
(ED Va. 1988), rev’d on other grounds, 883 F. 2d 275 (CA4 
1989).

For another thing, reliance upon the “first sale” doctrine
is deeply embedded in the practices of those, such as book­
sellers,  libraries,  museums,  and  retailers,  who  have  long
relied  upon  its  protection.    Museums,  for  example,  are 
not  in  the  habit  of  asking  their  foreign  counterparts  to 
check  with  the  heirs  of  copyright  owners  before  sending, 
e.g.,  a  Picasso  on  tour.    Brief  for  Association  of  Art  Mu­
seum  Directors  11–12.  That  inertia  means  a  dramatic 
change  is  likely  necessary  before  these  institutions,  in­
structed  by  their  counsel,  would  begin  to  engage  in  the
complex  permission-verifying  process  that  a  geographical 
interpretation  would  demand.    And  this  Court’s  adoption
of  the  geographical  interpretation  could  provide  that
dramatic  change.    These  intolerable  consequences  (along
with  the  absurd  result  that  the  copyright  owner  can  ex- 
ercise  downstream  control  even  when  it  authorized  the 
import  or  first  sale)  have  understandably  led  the  Ninth
Circuit, the Solicitor General as amicus, and the dissent to