« PředchozíPokračovat »
change merely, over wider area, of ordinary sight-seeing; and the exchange is in the language of the ordinary sight-seer. Matter of this character is not, within the meaning of the copyright law, the fruit of intellectual labor, and would not, if actually copyrighted, be protected by the courts. J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250." National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 294, 56 CCA 198, 60 LRA 805.
27. See also supra § 95. 28. Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory, etc., Co., 146 Fed. 332, 333.
"The plaintiff invokes the law because he was the owner, proprietor, and compiler of a book. In so far as he may have used his brains to get up an artistic book in the way of grouping, classifying, and setting forth the facts which it contains, there would be reason in his claim; but in so far ás he merely records accurately the names of residents, with their occupations, and where to find them at home and in business, it is impossible to discover wherein the useful arts and sciences are promoted. The labor involved therein is purely mechanical, and to protect the copyright affords a certain measure of monopoly in the right to make such a use of labor and money. Copyrights upon directories have, however, been cared for by the courts so many times that it would be presumptuous for me, without solicitation, to attempt a practical expression of my own views. The complainant's lawful copyright is therefore assumed, and, sternly repressing such tendencies as these suggestions would lead us toward, it will be my purpose to decide the matter upon the cases presented." Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory, etc., Co., supra.
29. National Cloak, etc., Co. Kaufman 189 Fed. 215; Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory, etc., Co., 146 Fed. 332; Sampson, etc., Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co., 140 Fed. 539, 72 CCA 55 [rev 134 Fed. 890]; Trow Directory, etc., Co. v. U. S. Directory Co., 122 Fed. 191; Williams V. Smythe, 110 Fed. 961; Trow Directory, etc., Co. v. Boyd, 97 Fed. 586; Morris v. Wright. L. R. 5 Ch. 279; Lamb v. Evans,  1 Ch. 218; Mathieson v. Harrod, L. R. 7 Eq. 270; Morris v. Ashbee, L. R. 7 Eq. 40; Kelly v. Morris, L. R. 1 Eq. 697, 7 ERC 102; Lewis v. Fullarton. 2 Beav. 6, 17 EngCh 6, 48 Reprint 1080; Collis v. Cater, 78 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613;
tions of patents are not subjects of copyright.35
 23. Cyclopedic and Composite Works.30 Cyclopedic and composite works may be copyrighted, and the statute now specifically so provides. 38
 24. Legal Works-a. Law Reports. Law reports may be copyrighted, but such copyright will extend only to those parts which are the work of the reporter, such as the syllabi, index, abridgments of the arguments of counsel, statements of facts, and other like features.39 For reasons largely of public policy, there can be no copyright in those parts of the report which are the product of the judges made in the performance of their official duties as such,40 including the opinions of the
Kelly v. Hodge, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 387; Kelly v. Hooper, 1 Y. & Coll. 197, 20 EngCh 197, 62 Reprint 852.
"Directories and works of like character have been specifically protected, at least since Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Beav. 6. 17 EngCh 6, 48 Reprint 1080 decided in 1839, and that they are to be protected is now firmly established." Sampson, etc., Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co., 140 Fed. 539, 542, 72 CCA 55 [rev 134 Fed. 890].
[a] Trade directory.-The headings of a trade directory under which trade advertisements are classified are the subject of copyright. Lamb v. Evans,  1 Ch. 218.
30. See supra note 29.
31. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 5(a)).
32. Common-law rights see supra §§ 7, 8.
33. Banker v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 94. See also Stover v. Lathrop, 33 Fed. 348 (where, admitting copyright, there was no infringement). 34. 803].
See generally Patents [30 Cyc
35. Wyatt v. Barnard, 3 Ves. & B. 77, 35 Reprint 408. But see Newton v. Cowe, 4 Bing. 234, 13 ECL 482, 130 Reprint 759 (where it was held that an engraving on a reduced scale of a specification of a new invention enrolled at the patent office may be the subject of copyright, such reduction having required labor and some degree of skill to preserve the proportions).
36. Legal encyclopedia see infra § 137.
Renewal of copyright see infra §8 237-239.
37. See infra § 137.
Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 5(a)).
39. U. S.-Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 SCt 177, 32 L. ed. 547; Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 9 SCt 36, 32 L. ed. 425 [aff 23 Fed. 143]; Paige v. Banks, 13 Wall. 608, 20 L. ed. 709 [aff 18 F. Cas. No. 10,671, 7 Blatchf. 152]; Little v. Hall, 18 How. 165, 15 L. ed. 328; Backus v. Gould, 7 How. 798, 12 L. ed. 919; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L. ed. 1055; West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 169 Fed. 833 [mod on other grounds 176 Fed. 833, 100 CCA 303] West Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co-op. Pub. Co., 64 Fed. 360. 25 LRA 441 [rev on other grounds 79 Fed. 756, 25 CCA 648, 35 LRA 400]; Myers V. Callaghan, 5 Fed. 726, 10 Biss. 139, 20 Fed. 441; Banks v. McDivitt, 1 F. Cas. No. 961, 13 Blatchf. 163; Chase v. Sanborn, 5 F. Cas. No. 2,628, 4 Cliff. 306; Cowen v. Banks, 6 F. Cas. No. 3,295, 24 How Pr (N. Y.) 72; Gould v. Hastings, 9 F. Cas. No. 5,639; Gray v. Russell, 10 F. Cas. No. 5,728, 1 Story 11; Little v. Gould, 15 F. Cas. No. 8.394, 2 Blatchf. 165, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,395, 2 Blatchf. 362.
Ind. Ex p. Brown, 166 Ind. 593, 78 NE 553. Mass.-Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass 29. 6 NE 559. Pa.-Banks v. Manchester, 2 Del.
Eng. Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B. 459. 81 ECL 459, 139 Reprint 838; Hodges v. Welch, 2 Ir. Eq. 266; Sweet V. Shaw, 3 Jur. 217; Saunders v. Smith, 3 Myl. & C. 711, 14 EngCh 711, 40 Reprint 1100; Sweet V. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51, 34 EngCh 51, 59 Reprint 793. See Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves. Jr. 709, 31 Reprint 817 (where an injunction was granted against a colorable abridgment of the Term Reports).
40. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 SCt 177, 32 L. ed. 547; Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 9 SCt 36, 32 L. ed. 425 [aff 23 Fed. 143]; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 8 L. ed. 1055; State v. Gould, 34 Fed. 319; Banks v. West Pub. Co., 27 Fed. 50; Little v. Gould, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,394, 2 Blatchf. 165, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,395, 2 Blatchf. 362 (under N. Y. Const. (1846) art 6 § 22, which provides that all "judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person"); Ex p. Brown, 166 Ind. 593, 78 NE 553; Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 NE 559; Banks v. Manchester, 2 Del. Co. (Pa.) 372; Tichborne v. Mostyn, L. R. 7 Eq. 55 note. See also Rex v. Clement, 4 B. & Ald. 218, 6 ECL 458, 106 Reprint 918; Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Reprint 201; Atkins' Case [cit Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2315, 2316, 98 Reprint 201]]; Roper v. Streater [cit Millar v. Taylor, supra]; Baskett v. Cambridge Univ., 2 Burr. 661, 97 Reprint 499, 2 Ld. Ken. 397, 96 Reprint 1222, W. Bl. 105, 96 Reprint 59; Gurney v. Longman, 13 Ves. J. 493, 33 Reprint 379; 8 Bacon Abr. tit Prerogative p 114 (F) 5.
"The question is one of public policy, and there has always been a judicial consensus, from the time of the decision in the case of Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L. ed. 1055 that no copyright could under the statutes passed by Congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties. The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute. Nash V. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 35, 6 NE 559. In Wheaton v. Peters, at p. 668, it was said by this court, that it was 'unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this court; and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right.' What a court, or a judge thereof, cannot confer on a reporter as the basis of a copyright in him, they cannot confer on any other person or on the State." Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 253, 9 SCt 36, 32 L. ed. 425 [aff 23 Fed. 143].
[a] Constitutional provision making judicial decisions public property. In the case of Little v. Gould, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,394, 2 Blatchf. 165, it
 e. Legal Blanks. It has been held that blank forms for legal instruments required by statute may possess sufficient originality to entitle them to be copyrighted,55 although minor parts of such forms are old, if they are so combined with the parts drawn in pursuance of the statute as to make a complete form.56
[§ 139] 25. New Editions. New editions of existing works which are but reprints of the original without alteration or addition are not copyrightable, but are protected, if at all, by the original copyright.5 But where new and original matter is incorporated into a new edition by the exercise of intellectual skill, a new copyright may be obtained thereon, such editions being new works within the meaning of the statute.59 This was true even under the former statutes,60 and the copyright act of 1909 specifically so provides. In the case of new editions, the subsequent copyright covers only what is new and original in the new edition;62 it does not operate to extend or to enlarge the prior copyrights or to remove from the public domain the portions which have been dedicated to the public. 63 This rule also has been incorporated in the statute. Merely colorable changes not made in good faith for the  d. Cyclopedias and Textbooks. Cyclo- purpose of producing a new work will not confer pedias of law and legal textbooks are copyrightable a right to a copyright." So mere mechanical aggreand have often been protected against piracy.54 gation of matter previously published will not suphis copyright would embrace all such | by every applicant for a license to matters, for they constitute no part sell liquor at retail has been held of that which is public property, and to be entitled to the protection of are plainly produced by the com- the copyright statute. Plaintiff's piler." Howell v. Miller, 91 Fed. forms were declared to be sufficiently 129, 138, 33 CCA 407. original. "They are founded upon and are adapted to the requirements of the Pennsylvania statute of 1887, relating to the sale of liquors. While minor parts of each form are old, they are so combined with the parts drawn in pursuance of the statute as to make a complete form. Το prepare such instruments requires some learning, and involves some literary labor; quite as much as the compilation of facts or figures, or extracts from books. Such compilations are entitled to a copyright, under the construction given to the statute.' Brightley v. Littleton, 37 Fed. 103, 104.
court," syllabi, and statements of facts,12 or other matter prepared by the judges.43 In Connecticut a contrary view has been expressed.44
 b. Statutes and Court Rules. In England the crown has, by virtue of its prerogative, the exclusive right to the publication, among other things, of acts of parliament.45 In the United States there can be no copyright in statutes themselves for the same reasons that are applicable to reports.* But a particular compilation of statutes may, on account of the judgment and skill displayed in the combination and analysis and the addition of original features by the compiler, be so original as to entitle the author to a copyright therein.*7 So a copyright may be had in an analysis of acts of parliament with appendixes." Annotated court rules may be copyrighted."
 c. Digests. Digests of decisions are of course copyrightable50 as compilations,51 and this is true, although they are made up of syllabi paragraphs previously published and copyrighted in the form of reports,52 or of digest paragraphs previously published in earlier digests, but which have been recompiled, with additions, and so made into a new digest.5
was held that the provision of N. Y. Const. (1846) art 6 § 22, that all "judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person" was not repugnant to the constitution of the United States. For a construction of this provision see Little v. Gould, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,395, 2 Blatchf. 362.
41. See cases supra note 40.
42. Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 9 SCt 36, 32 L. ed. 425 [aff 23 Fed. 143]; West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 169 Fed. 833 [mod on other grounds 176 Fed. 833, 100 CCA 303]; Chase v. Sanborn, 5 F. Cas. No. 2,628.
43. Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 9 SCt 36, 32 L. ed. 425 [aff 23 Fed. 143]; and cases supra note 40. 44. Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415, 2 A 886, 55 AmR 143. It has been said that the observations on this point were unnecessary to the decision of the case before the court. Per Wallace, J., in State v. Gould, 34 Fed. 319.
48. Alexander v. Mackenzie, 9 Dec. Ct. Sess. (2d ser) 748.
49. Banks v. McDivitt, 2 F. Cas. No. 961, 13 Blatchf. 163.
50. West Pub. Co. V. Lawyers' Co-Op. Pub. Co.. 64 Fed. 360, 25 LRA 441 [rev on other grounds 79 Fed. 756, 25 CCA 648. 35 LRA 400]; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. 61; Banks v. McDivitt, 2 F. Cas. No. 961, 13 Blatchf. 163; Sweet v. Benning. 16 C. B. 459, 81 ECL 459, 139 Reprint Infringement of law digest see 310.
51. See supra § 95.
West Pub. Co. V. Edward
45. Drone Copyright p 164; Baskett v. Cambridge Univ., 2 Burr. 661, 97 Reprint 499, 2 Ld. Ken. 397, 96 Reprint 1222, W. Bl. 105, 96 Reprint 59; Baskett v. Cunningham, 2 Eden 137, 28 Reprint 848, W. Bl. 370, 96 Reprint 208; Eyre v. Carnan, 8 Bac. Abr. p 144 tit Prerogative (F) 5. See also Banks v. West Pub. Co., 27 Fed. 50 (discussing early cases under the king's prerogative).
[a] New editions of maps as well as of books are included and contemplated by the copyright laws. Farmer v. Calvert Lith., etc., Co., 8 F. Cas. No. 4.651, 1 Flipp. 228.
Crown copyright see infra § 164. 46. Howell v. Miller, 91 Fed. 129, 33 CCA 407; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. 61; Banks v. West Pub. Co., 27 Fed. 50, 59 (dictum by Brewer, J.). 47. Howell v. Miller, 91 Fed. 129, 33 CCA 407; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. 61.
60. See also cases supra note 59. 61. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 6); West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 176 Fed. 833, 100 CCA 303 (applying the statute).
[a] Scope of compiler's copyright. "Upon like grounds we are of opinion that Howell was entitled to have copyrighted his volumes of Annotated Statutes, and that such copyright covers all in his books that may fairly be deemed the result of his labors. Speaking generally. this would include marginal references, notes, memoranda, table of contents, indexes, and digests of judicial decisions prepared by him from original sources of information; also such headnotes as are clearly the result of his labors. We do not perceive any difficulty in holding that
62. Caliga v. Inter-Ocean Newspaper Co., 157 Fed. 186, 84 CCA 634 [aff 215 U. S. 182, 30 SCt 38, 54 L. "One may copyright ed. book of 150]; Kipling V. Putnam, 120 Fed. 631, 57 CCA 295, 65 LRA 873. forms or a series of papers to be filled in by applicants for liquor See also supra § 91. licenses: Brightley v. Littleton, 37 Fed. 103. In this the Judge said: "The matter must be original and possess some possible utility. The originality, however, may be of the lowest order, and the utility barely perceptible.' Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. 131, 134.
65. Snow v. Laird, 98 Fed. 813, 39 CCA 311; Black v. Murray, 9 Sc. Sess. Cas. (3d ser) 341 (where it was discussed, although not decided, whether by a change of one word a copyright may be acquired in a new edition); Cary v. Faden, 5 Ves. Jr. 24, 31 Reprint 453.
56. Brightley v. Littleton, 37 Fed.
[a] Rule applied.-A series of blank forms for the instruments required by a liquor tax law to be filed
[a] Reclaiming published photo
57. See supra §§ 92, 93. Notice of copyright editions see infra § 219.
See infra § 310.
55. Brightley v. Littleton, 37 Fed. 103; Alexander v. Mackenzie, 9 Dec. Ct. Sess. (2d ser) 748; Church V. Linton, 25 Ont. 131. But see Carlisle v. Colusa County, 57 Fed. 979 (where it was held, construing Cal. Pol. Code § 3630, that there could be no copyright in any particular arrangement of the matter which the California code required the assessors to deliver to each person as a blank form of property statements, for the assessors should not he embarrassed in the performance of their duties by any distinctions of convenience of forms prepared by private persons).
59. West Pub. Co. V. Edward Thompson Co., 176 Fed. 833, 100 CCA 303; Banks v. McDivitt. 2 F. Cas. No. 961, 13 Blatchf. 163; Gray V. Russell, 10 F. Cas. No. 5.728, 1 Story 11; Lawrence v. Dana, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,136, 4 Cliff. 1.
63. Kipling v. Putnam, 120 Fed. 631. 57 CCA 295. 65 LRA 873.
64. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 6).
port a new copyright. Where the new matter is separable from the old, or where only a portion of the original matter has been rewritten or revised, the new copyright will extend only to such distinct and separable matter."7 New editions of copyrighted works must be produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works,68 and the statute expressly so provides;69 otherwise the new edition is a piracy.70
[§ 140] 26. Advertisements, Catalogues, and Price Lists. It has been held that to entitle a work to copyright protection it must have by itself some value as a composition, at least to the extent of serving some purpose other than a mere advertisement, and therefore that a production which has no value except as a mere advertising medium cannot
be copyrighted." This rule has been applied to
graph. Where a photograph hasing a daily "price-current" not
66. Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U. S. 265, 23 SCt 771, 47 L. ed. 1043 [aff 112 Fed. 1004, 50 CCA 661, 61 LRA 134]; Mifflin v. R. H. White Co., 190 U. S. 260, 23 SCt 769, 47 L. ed. 1040 [aff 112 Fed. 1004, 50 CCA 661, 61 LRA 134 (aff 107 Fed. 708)]; Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 82. 19 SCt 606, 43 L. ed. 904; West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 176 Fed. 833, 100 CCA 303.
[a] A mere illustrated price catalogue, with pictures of wares offered for sale, and containing letterpress which is confined to a statement of dimensions and prices and is of no literary merit, is not within the protection of the copyright statute. J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250 [aff_72_Fed. 168]; Cobbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407.
74. Ehret v. Pierce, 10 Fed. 553, 18 Blatchf. 302 [dist Yuengling v. Schile, 12 Fed. 97) (a particular advertising card held not copyrightable as a "print"); Griffin v. Kingston, etc., R. Co., 17 Ont. 660.
67. Cary v. Longman, 1 East 358, 102 Reprint 138, 7 ERC 78.
68. Gray v. Russell, 10 F. Cas. No. 5,728. I Story 11: Sweet v. Cater, 11 Sim. 572, 34 EngCh 572, 59 Reprint 994; Tonson V. Walker, 3 Swanst. 672, 36 Reprint 1017.
75. Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed. 912; Stecher Lith. Co. V. Dunston Lith. Co., 233 Fed. 601; Yuengling v. Schile, 12 Fed. 97, 20 Blatchf. 452 (where a chromolithograph which, although used by plaintiff as an advertisement, possessed evident artistic merit, was said to be the subject of copyright); Hotten v. Arthur, 1 70. See supra § 91. Hem. & M. 603, 71 Reprint 264 (a Abridgments as infringements see catalogue of a bookseller not coninfra 304. sisting of a mere list of dry names, but giving information as to the several items).
69. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 6).
Infringement generally see infra §§ 263-335.
71. Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed. 912; Stone v. Dugan Piano Co., 220 Fed. 837, 136 CCA 583; J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250; Cobbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407 [overr Maple v. Junior Army, etc., Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369]; Lamb v. Evans, 67 L. T. Rep. N. S. 523. See also Lamb v. Grand Rapids School Furniture Co., 39 Fed. 474; Collender v. Griffith, 6 F. Cas. No. 3,000, 11 Blatchf. 212 (both cases sometimes cited in support of this rule, but both really only holding that there was no infringement).
"I cannot conceive on what principle it is supposed that there is no copyright in a catalogue such as this. This is not a mere dry list of names, like a postal directory, Court guide, or anything of that sort, which must be substantially the same by whatever number of persons issued and however independently compiled. This is a case of a bookseller who issues an account of his stock, containing short descriptions of the contents of the books, calculated to interest either the general public or the persons who may take an interest in the questions treated of by particular books. For example:-Suppose one of the books to be a History of Cheshire; then he gives you a slight "In this connection, it may be adaccount of it, from which it appears mitted ex gratia argumenti, without that it contains a number of anecbeing decided, that some form of ad- dotes respecting county families vertisements, such as characteristic and other things of that nature; it advertisements, come within the pro- might well be that persons who did tection of the law. But said Judge not previously know anything of the Jenkins, speaking for the Circuit work would be guided by the descripCourt of Appeals in Mott Iron-Works tion and induced to purchase the v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250: work. There is another point of 'So far as the decisions of the Su- view in which this case appears to preme Court have gone, we think me to be even clearer. Suppose the they hold to the proposition that case of a professional writer (there mere advertisements, whether by may well be such), whose peculiar letterpress or by pictures, are not department it is to make out Catawithin the protection of the copy-logue Raisonnées' of this kind, and right laws." Stone v. Dugan Piano Co.. 220 Fed. 837, 841, 136 CCA 583. Literary and artistic merit see generally supra § 98.
"It is uniformly held that advertisements possessing no literary or artistic qualities are not the subject of a copyright." Barnes V. Miner, 122 Fed. 480. 493.
to write such abstracts of the noticeable points in the various books of the catalogue as we have here. A man who is an author for this 72. J. L. Mott Iron Works purpose would naturally expect that Clow, 82 Fed. 316. 27 CCA 250. the very fact that he had printed also infra note 77. such notes for one publisher would 73. J. L. Mott Iron Works V. lead to his employment for a simClow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250 [aff ilar purpose by another. Suppose 72 Fed. 1681; Clayton v. Stone. 5 now this other to say to him. 'I F. Cas. No. 2,872, 2 Paine 382 (hold-have no occasion for your services,
"paste and scissors work" will give
[a] A chromo, if a meritorious work of art, may be copyrighted, although designed and used for gratuitous distribution as an advertisement for the purpose of attracting business. Yuengling v. Schile, 12 Fed. 97, 20 Blatchf. 452.
[b] Size of painting-The fact that a painting is only seven by four and one-half inches in size, and could be readily lithographed and used as an advertising label, will not affect the copyright. Schumacher Schwencke, 25 Fed. 466, 23 Blatchf.
77. Lawrence v. Cupples, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,135; Davis v. Benjamin,  2 Ch. 491 (per Swinfen Eady, J.); Lamb v. Evans,  3 Ch. 462 [app dism  1 Ch. 218] (classified trade directory); Maple v. Junior Army, etc., Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369 [overr Cobbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407]; Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. 624, 7 ERC 86; Hogg v. Scott, L. R. 18 Eq. 444; Bogue v. Houlston, 5 De G. & Sm. 267, 64 Reprint 1111; Hotten v. Arthur. 1 Hem. & M. 603, 71 Reprint 264; Wilkens v. Aikin, 17 Ves. Jr. 422, 34 Reprint 163.
[a] English cases must be received with caution on this point, as they were decided under a statute giving copyright in "books," and defining "book" to include a sheet of letterpress. See supra § 101. They were not affected by any limitation as to authorship and utility such as are imposed by the federal constitution in this country. See supra § 85.
78. Stone v. Dugan Piano Co., 210 Fed. 399. 400 [aff 220 Fed. 837, 136 CCA 583].
"As to whether advertisements may be copyrighted, there are cases both ways.' Stone v. Dugan Piano Co., supra.
[a] Illustration.-"In Cobbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407, decided in 1872. an upholsterer published an illustrated catalogue containing engravings of the articles of furniture he offered for sale, with re
is necessary, and the validity of a copyright in a business circular,80 and a catalogue or mere list of articles for sale,s 81 has been sustained. illustrations or cuts of articles offered for sale conPictorial stituting or contained in advertisements or catalogues have been held copyrightable and protected against piracy,82 although other cases have denied them protection on the ground that they were mere marks of description. tion was denied, Lord Romilly asThe injunc- | said by Mr. Justice Bradley in Baker serting: 'I know of no law which, 841: v. Selden, 101 U. S. 99, 25 L. ed. while it would not prevent the sec"There is a clear distinction ond advertiser from between the book as such and the same article, would selling the article which it is intended to illusfrom using the same advertisement, lustration; of the other it is the use prevent him trate. The object of the one is ilprovided he did not in such adver- thereof. The former may be secured tisement, by any device, suggest that by copyright, the latter by patent.' he was selling the works and de- The complainant does not claim to signs of the first advertiser.' In Maple v. Junior Army, etc., sale of the wearing apparel depicted monopolize the manufacture Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369, decided in by reason of its copyright. It does, and 1882, the court flatly overruled Cob- however, claim the right thereby to bett v. Woodward, supra, and held that such a book or catalogue as is prevent others from copying and apin question here was the subject of such pictures and to this it is enpropriating its exclusive property in protection under the laws of Eng- titled by reason land." J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 319, 320, 27 CCA tional Cloak, etc., Co. v. Kaufman, which appears to be valid.' of its copyright 250. Na189 Fed. 215, 219.
[a] Fashion pictures.-"The illus-
nus and his followers," intended as
79. Collis v. Cater, 78 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. 131. See also supra § 98.
"It makes no difference that the pictures in suit are intended for advertising articles of commerce. jonge v. Breuker, etc., Co., 182 Fed. De150 [aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113], or that they possessed little artistic merit. Donaldson Lith. Co., 188 U. S. 239, Bleistein V. 23 SCt 298, 47 L. ed. 460. enough that the evidence shows that It is the pictures in their details, design, and combination of lines and colors originated with the complainant and are in fact pictorial illustrations or works connected with the fine arts." Stacher Lith. Co. v. Dunston Lith. Co., 233 Fed. 601, 603.
advertisements and hence not copyrightable. Ordinary circus posters may be copyrighted.84 A manual instructing how to use a mechanical toy prepared for children, which was more than a mere advertisement, being a guide to the combinations which children might form with the toy, and explaining many principles of mechanics, may be copyrighted.85
held to be a proper subject of copyright. 97, 20 Blatchf. 452 [dist Ehret v. Pierce, 10 Fed. 553, 18 Blatchf. 302, Yuengling v. Schile, 12 Fed. article in that case was not a work on the ground that the copyrighted and was merely a mode of advertisof art and had no value as such, ing. In the principal case, Brown, nation, and had such obvious arD. J., held that the chromo of Gambrinus was a work of the imagitistic qualities as in his judgment right without regard to render it fairly a subject of copywhich plaintiff may have made, or to the use might have intended to make, of it].
Grand Rapids School Furniture Co., 83. J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA 250; Land v. 39 Fed. 474; Corbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407 (overruled by later See supra note 81).
taining illustrations of wares offered [a] Plumbing supplies.-A price catalogue constituting a volume contubs, foot baths, etc., which articles for sale, such as washbowls, bathare without ornamentation, and cannot well be the subject of artistic treatment, is not the proper subject of a copyright, the letterpress being confined to a statement of dimensions and price. Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 316, 27 CCA J. L. Mott Iron 250 [aff 72 Fed. 168].
84. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lith. Co., 188 U. S. 239, 23 SCt 298, 47 296]; Hegeman v. Springer, 110 Fed. L. ed. 460 [rev 104 Fed. 993, 44 CCA 374, 49 CCA 86 [aff 189 U. S. 505, 23 SCt 849, 47 L. ed. 921] (theatrical lithographs advertising the "Black Crook"). [a] ballet, a number of persons performChromolithographic advertisements of a circus, portraying a ing on bicycles, and groups of men and women whitened statues, are proper subjects of copyto represent right, under U. S. Rev. St. § 4952, as amended by the Act of June 18, 1874 (18 U. S. St. at L. 78 c 301 § 3), as "pictorial illustrations," even assuming that only such illusof such laws. trations as are "connected with the fine arts" are within the protection Bleistein v. Donald
son Lith. Co., 188 U. S. 239, 23 SCt 298, 47 L. ed. 460 [rev 104 Fed. 993, 44 CCA 296].
Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed.
80. Lamb v. Evans,  1 Ch. 218 (arrangement and headings of a page of newspaper advertisements); Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. 623, 7 ERC 86; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. 131. 81. National Cloak, Kaufman, 189 Fed. 215; Da Prato etc., Co. v. Statuary Co. V. Giuliani Statuary Co., 189 Fed. 90; Davis v. Benjamin.  2 Ch. 491; Maple v. Junior Army, etc., Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369 [overr Cobbett v. Woodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407]; Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. 623, 7 ERC 86; Hotten v. Arthur, 1 Hem. & M. 603, 71 Reprint 264; Collis v. Cater, 78 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613 (where North, J., said that such lists could not be distinguished in principle from directories).
82. Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed. 912; J. H. White Mfg. Co. v. Shapiro, 227 Fed. 957; National Cloak, etc., Co. v. Standard Mail Order Co., 191 Fed. 528; National Cloak, etc., Kaufman, 189 Fed. 215; Da Prato Co. v. Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., 189 Fed. 90; Davis v. Benjamin,  2 Ch. 491; Maple v. Junior Army, etc., Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369; Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. 623, 7 ERC 86 (where it was held that book of pictures monuments, collected and made for of sepulchral a cemetery man, to be shown to customers ordering a monument, the proper subject of Collis v. Cater, 78 L. T. Rep. N. S. copyright); 613; Slingsby v. Bradford Patent Truck, etc., Co.,  W. N. 122 (where an illustrated catalogue was treated as copyrightable, but denied protection on the ground contained fraudulent representation). that it "The fallacy in the argument that the complainant cannot 'productions of the industrial arts' copyright lies in the confusion of the pictures with the things they depict in particular way; that is, the wearing apparel which appears in the illustration as part of the pictures. As For later cases, developments and changes in the law see cumulative Annotations, same title, page and note number
85. 912. [a] Manual of instructions for use with article sold.-"Whether or down by Judge Jenkins in J. L. Mott not complainant's Manual may be properly the subject of copyright may be determined by the test laid Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. 27 CCA 250, in which he says, re316, ferring to certain decisions of the Supreme Court: "The result of these decisions would seem to place this provision under consideration: That construction upon the constitutional are included as are the result of inonly such writings and discoveries ings" may be liberally construed to tellectual labor; that the term "writinclude designs for engraving and prints that are original, and are founded in the creative powers of the mind, the fruits of intellectual labor that, to be entitled to a copyright, the article must have, by and of itself, some value as a composition, at least to the extent serving some purpose other than as of a mere advertisement or designation of the subject to which it is attached.' When this, together with other statements in the opinion,
 27. Labels and Prints for Manufactured Articles. By specific provisions of the act of 1874,88 which was not repealed by the Copyright Act of 1909, and is still in force, no prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufac
applied to complainant's Manual, it cannot be successfully denied that complainant's Manuals were properly copyrighted. Aside from the attractiveness of the designs themselves, it is certain that much thought and labor must have been given to their construction. They are more than an advertisement of complainant's wares. They instruct the purchaser how to use the strips of metal and wheels and nuts and angles and plates, without which even a particularly bright boy would not be able himself to think out the many models set forth. It can scarcely be doubted, too, that in constructing models based on the illustrations, many mechanical devices, of which he would otherwise have no knowledge, are brought to his mind, and many principles of mechanics imparted to him." Meccano v. Wagner, 234 Fed. 912, 921.
86. Act June 18, 1874 (18 U. S. St. at L. 78 c 301 § 3).
87. Stecher Lith. Co. v. Dunston Lith. Co., 233 Fed. 601; 28 Op. Atty.Gen. (Fowler) 116.
[a] Duty of patent office to register prints The Copyright Act of March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075), did not relieve the patent office of its duty, and it is still required to register all prints which have heretofore been registered therein under the act of June 18, 1874 (18 U. S. St. at L. 78), and in the same manner as they have heretofore been registered. 28 Op. Atty.Gen. (Fowler) 116.
88. Stecher Lith. Co. v. Dunston Lith. Co., 233 Fed. 601.
[a] Construction of statute by attorney-general.-"By the act of July 8, 1870 (16 Stat. 198), as appears from the caption of said act. Congress revised, consolidated, and amended the statutes then existing relating to patents and copyrights. The first 76 sections of this statute related exclusively to patents, while sections 85 to 110 related to copyrights. By section 71 of said act it was provided that any person who, by his own industry, genius, efforts, and expense has invented or duced (among other things) any new and original impression, ornament, pattern, print, or picture, to be painted, cast, or otherwise placed on or worked into any article of manufacture, may, upon the payment of the duty required by law, and other due proceedings had, the same as in the case of inventions or discoveries, obtain a patent therefor. By section 86, which is the second section relating to copyrights, it was provided that any citizen of the United States or resident therein who shall be the author, inventor, designer, or proprietor of any (among other things) engraving, cut, print, or photograph, or negative thereof, shall, upon complying with the provisions of this act, have the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing, and vending the same. It will thus be seen that the word 'print' was used in this act in connection with both things which might be patented and also those subject to copyright, but the distinction between the two characters of prints was clearly drawn by the clause in said section 71, which limited the prints that might be patented to those which were 'to be placed on or worked into any article of manufacture.' In codifying this act section 71 was carried into the Revised Statutes. with slight verbal changes, as section 4929, in chapter 1 of title 60. which relates solely to patents, while section 86 was copied, with slight modifications,
ture shall be entered under the copyright law, but they may be registered in the patent office in conformity with the regulations provided by law as to copyright of prints. Only such cuts, prints, and engravings as constitute pictorial illustrations or
as section 4962, in chapter 3 of said | eight hundred and eighty-six, ob-