Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

“treaty  party”);  U. S.  Copyright  Office,  Circular  No.  38A,
International  Copyright  Relations  of  the  United  States 
(2010).  Thus, ordinary English permits us to say that the
Act  “applies”  to  an  Irish  manuscript  lying  in  its  author’s
Dublin  desk  drawer  as  well  as  to  an  original  recording  of 
a  ballet  performance  first  made  in  Japan  and  now  on
display  in  a  Kyoto  art  gallery.    Cf.  4  M.  Nimmer  &  D. 
Nimmer, Copyright §17.02, pp. 17–18, 17–19 (2012) (herein­
after Nimmer on Copyright) (noting that the principle that
“copyright laws do not have any extraterritorial operation”
“requires some qualification”). 

The  Ninth  Circuit’s  geographical  interpretation  pro- 

duces still greater linguistic difficulty.  As we said, that Cir­
cuit  interprets  the  “first  sale”  doctrine  to  cover  both  (1)
copies  manufactured  in  the  United  States  and  (2)  copies
manufactured  abroad  but  first  sold  in  the  United  States 
with  the  American  copyright  owner’s  permission.    Den­
bicare  U. S. A.,  84  F. 3d,  at  1149–1150.    See  also  Brief 
for  Respondent  16  (suggesting  that  the  clause  at  least 
excludes “the foreign production of a copy for distribution 
exclusively  abroad”);  id.,  at  51  (the  Court  need  “not  de- 
cide whether the copyright owner would be able to restrict
further distribution” in the case of “a downstream domes­
tic  purchaser  of  authorized  imports”);  Brief  for  Petitioner 
in  Costco  Wholesale  Corp.  v.  Omega,  S. A.,  O. T.  2010, 
No.  08–1423,  p.  12  (excepting  imported  copies  “made  by
unrelated foreign copyright holders” (emphasis deleted)).

We  can  understand  why  the  Ninth  Circuit  may  have
thought  it  necessary  to  add  the  second  part  of  its  defini­
tion.  As  we  shall  later  describe,  see  Part  II–D,  infra, 
without  some  such  qualification  a  copyright  holder  could 
prevent a buyer from domestically reselling or even giving 
away  copies  of  a  video  game  made  in  Japan,  a  film  made
in Germany, or a dress (with a design copyright) made in
China, even if the copyright holder has granted permission
for  the  foreign  manufacture,  importation,  and  an  initial