Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

6 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

remedy  against  the  importation  of  foreign-made  copies  of
their copyrighted works.  As the Court recognizes, ante, at 
3,  this  case  turns  on  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  “lawfully
made under this title” in §109(a).  In my view, that phrase
is most sensibly read as referring to instances in which a 
copy’s  creation  is  governed  by,  and  conducted  in  compli­
ance  with,  Title  17  of  the  U. S.  Code.    This  reading  is
consistent  with  the  Court’s  interpretation  of  similar  lan­
guage  in  other  statutes.    See  Florida  Dept.  of  Revenue  v. 
Piccadilly  Cafeterias,  Inc.,  554  U. S.  33,  52–53  (2008) 
(“under” in 11 U. S. C. §1146(a), a Bankruptcy Code provi­
sion  exempting  certain  asset  transfers  from  stamp  taxes, 
means “pursuant to”); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 135 
(1991) (the phrase “under section 554” in the Equal Access
to  Justice  Act  means  “subject  to”  or  “governed  by”  5 
U. S. C. §554 (internal quotation marks omitted)).  It also 
accords  with  dictionary  definitions  of  the  word  “under.”
See,  e.g.,  American  Heritage  Dictionary  1887  (5th  ed. 
2011)  (“under”  means,  among  other  things,  “[s]ubject  to
the authority, rule, or control of ”).

Section  109(a),  properly  read,  affords  Kirtsaeng  no
defense  against  Wiley’s  claim  of  copyright  infringement.
The  Copyright  Act,  it  has  been  observed  time  and  again, 
does  not  apply  extraterritorially.    See  United  Dictionary 
Co.  v.  G.  &  C.  Merriam  Co.,  208  U.  S.  260,  264  (1908) 
(copyright statute requiring that U. S. copyright notices be 
placed in all copies of a work did not apply to copies pub­
lished abroad because U. S. copyright laws have no “force” 
beyond  the  United  States’  borders);  4  M.  Nimmer  &  D.
Nimmer,  Copyright  §17.02,  p. 17–18  (2012)  (hereinafter 
Nimmer)  (“[C]opyright  laws  do  not  have  any  extraterrito­
rial  operation.”);  4  W.  Patry,  Copyright  §13:22,  p. 13–66
(2012)  (hereinafter  Patry)  (“Copyright  laws  are  rigor- 
ously  territorial.”).  The  printing  of  Wiley’s  foreign­
manufactured  textbooks  therefore  was  not  governed  by
Title  17.  The  textbooks  thus  were  not  “lawfully  made