Amsterdam v. Triangle Publications, 10340

Citation189 F.2d 104
Decision Date25 May 1951
Docket NumberNo. 10340,10348.,10340
PartiesAMSTERDAM v. TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, Inc. Appeal of AMSTERDAM. Appeal of TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, Inc.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Joseph G. Denny, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Harold E. Kohn, Philadelphia, Pa. (Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Green, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief) for Triangle Publications, Inc.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint which sought damages for the infringement by the defendant of the copy-right of a map of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, who does business under the trade name Franklin Survey Company, is a publisher of maps. He published and copyrighted the map in question in 1932. The defendant is the publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper of large circulation. In the Sunday issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer of January 13, 1946, in a section known as "Everybody's Weekly", the defendant published a map of Delaware County in connection with an historical article relating to the county. The plaintiff's suit is based upon the publication of this map by the defendant which, he asserts, was copied from his previously copyrighted map. The defendant concedes the copying but contends that the plaintiff's map was not entitled to copyright, that the copyright is accordingly invalid, and that it was, therefore, free to copy the map. Whether the map was copyrightable is the sole question presented by the plaintiff's appeal.

Upon evidence which we regard as amply sufficient the district court made the following findings of fact with respect to the manner in which the plaintiff's map was prepared:

"10. To make this map, the plaintiff studied every map of Delaware County that he could find.

"11. Neither the plaintiff nor anyone on his behalf made any actual surveys or investigations of any roads, county lines, township lines, creeks, rivers or railroad lines. All this information was obtained from other maps in the plaintiff's possession or in the possession of the township and municipal authorities.

"12. The state highway route numbers were obtained from the State Highway Department.

"13. With the exception of the names of a few very small secondary roads, which were obtained from the real estate developers, all information shown on the plaintiff's map came from maps already in existence, although none of this information had been published previously on any one map.

"14. The plaintiff spent considerable time and effort to assemble and prepare this information for publication but did very little, if any, original work."

In considering the factual situation thus disclosed the opinion of the district court filed by Judge Bard, 93 F.Supp. 79, 82, states:

"The issue raised by these facts is whether the plaintiff did sufficient original work to entitle his map to copyright protection.

"To be copyrightable a map must be the result of some original work. Andrews v. Guenther Pub. Co., D.C., 60 F.2d 555, 557; General Drafting Co., Inc., v. Andrews, et al., 2 Cir., 37 F.2d 54, 56; 34 Am.Jur. 454-455; 18 C.J.S., Copyright and Literary Property, § 116, p. 233.

"The actual original work of surveying, calculating and investigating that was done by the plaintiff in order to make his map was so negligible that it may be discounted entirely.

"What the plaintiff did was to study the United States Geological Survey Maps, the Pennsylvania Department of Highways Maps, the maps prepared and owned by the various townships and municipalities, and all other maps which he could find. Primarily, he studied the maps published by governmental authorities. He then prepared, from the information shown on these maps, a large map of Delaware County. From this large map, he next designed and published the small map involved in this case.

"To make his map, the plaintiff had to determine only what information he was going to use from other maps, the emphasis to be given to that information and the coloring scheme and symbols he was going to use. When he finished, his map by comparison was a new map that contained some information that was not on any one of his base maps but was collectively on all of these maps.

"Is this exercise of judgment and discretion by the plaintiff the type of original work that is intended to be protected by the Copyright Act? I think not.

"The location of county lines, township lines and municipal lines is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Golan v. Gonzales, 05-1259.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • September 4, 2007
    ...public domain and no citizen may gain monopoly thereover to the exclusion of their use by other citizens."); Amsterdam v. Triangle Publ'ns, Inc., 189 F.2d 104, 106 (3d Cir.1951) ("The location of county lines, township lines and municipal lines is information within the public domain, and i......
  • Vogue Ring Creations, Inc. v. Hardman, Civ. A. No. 74-191.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • February 25, 1976
    ...512, 513. The variation must be meaningful and must result from original creative work on the author's part. Amsterdam v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 3 Cir. 1951, 189 F.2d 104; Andrews v. Guenther Publishing Co., S.D.N.Y. 1932, 60 F.2d 555, Jeweler's Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone Pub......
  • Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc., 159-58.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • September 30, 1959
    ...Co., Inc. v. Andrews, 2 Cir., 1930, 37 F.2d 54; Andrews v. Guenther Pub. Co., D.C.N.Y.1932, 60 F.2d 555; Amsterdam v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 3 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 104; Freedman v. Milnag Leasing Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1937, 20 F.Supp. 802; Crocker v. General Drafting Co., Inc., D.C.N.Y......
  • Andrien v. Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 3, 1991
    ...474 U.S. 1061, 106 S.Ct. 806, 88 L.Ed.2d 781 (1986); United States v. Hamilton, 583 F.2d 448 (9th Cir.1978); Amsterdam v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 189 F.2d 104 (3d Cir.1951). 1 See generally 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright Sec. 2.08[A] (1990). Accepting the copyright statut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT