Isaac Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Company

• Citation: 54 L.Ed. 150,30 S.Ct. 38,215 U.S. 182
• Decision Date: 29 November 1909
• Docket Number: No. 22,22
• Parties: ISAAC H. CALIGA, Plff. in Err., v. INTER OCEAN NEWSPAPER COMPANY
• Court: United States Supreme Court

215 U.S. 182

30 S.Ct. 38

54 L.Ed. 150

ISAAC H. CALIGA, Plff. in Err.,

v INTER OCEAN NEWSPAPER COMPANY.

No. 22.

Argued November 5, 1909.

Decided November 29, 1909.

Messrs. Otto Raymond Barnett and Clarence T. Morse for plaintiff in error.

Messrs.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 182-184 intentionally omitted] Mr. James J. Barbour and Clarence A. Knight for defendant in error.

Messrs. L. L. Coburn and Josiah McRoberts, as amicus curioe, for the Tribune Company.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 184-186 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error, also plaintiff below, brought an action in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois to recover damages under § 4965 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3414) because of the publication by the defendant of more than one thousand copies of a newspaper containing a picture of a painting, copyrighted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he had in all respects complied with the Revised Statutes of the United States by causing to be deposited, on or about the 5th day of November, 1901, a photograph and a description of the painting, for the purpose of having it copyrighted, which deposit was before publication of the same in the United States or in any foreign country. By reason of the premises and the compliance with the statutes of the United States, the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to a copyright for the painting for the term of twenty-eight years from and after the recording of the title thereof by the librarian of Congress on November 7, 1901.

There were other allegations, and proofs tending to show a publication of a copy of the photograph in the newspaper of the defendant company. In the course of the trial it appeared that the plaintiff had deposited a description and photograph of the same painting with the librarian of Congress on October 7, 1901, for the purpose of securing a copyright. The trial court charged the jury, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff had brought his suit upon the wrong copyright, and therefore directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon writ of error, the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit affirmed this judgment. 84 C. C. A. 634, 157 Fed. 186. The case is now here for review.

The photographs filed upon the two applications for a copyright are identical. Nor is any substantial change in the painting shown; the copyrights undertaken to be secured were, therefore, upon the same painting. The difference is that, in the copyright sued upon, that of November 7, 1901, the title and description are, 'The Guardian Angel. Portrait of a young girl sitting, hair arranged smoothly over the ears, hair parted in the middle. Her guardian angel stands behind her, one hand resting on her left shoulder, the other on her right arm.' The description accompanying the application for the copyright of October 7, 1901, is, 'Maidenhood. A Young Girl seated beside a window; an Angel stands behind her.'

The question in this case is: Is the second attempt to copyright valid and effectual, or was the court right in charging in substance that it was void and of no effect?

We have had such recent and frequent occasions to consider the nature and extent of the copyright laws of the United States, as the same were before the recent revision, which took effect July 1, 1909, that it is unnecessary to enter into any extended discussion of the subject now. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339, 52 L. ed. 1086, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co. 209 U. S. 1, 52 L. ed. 655, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 319; American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284, 52 L. ed. 208, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72, 12 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 595; Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art. Co. 214 U. S. 236, 53 L. ed. 979, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 628. In these cases the previous cases in this court were cited and reviewed.

As a result of the decisions of this court, certain general propositions may be affirmed. Statutory copyright is not be confounded with the common-law right. At common law, the exclusive right to copy existed in the author until he permitted a general publication. Thus, when a book was published in print, the owner's common-law right was lost. At common law an author had a property in his manuscript, and might have an action against anyone who undertook to publish it without authority. The statute created a new property right, giving to the author, after publication, the exclusive right to multiply copies for a limited period. This statutory right is obtained in a...