Cardinal Film Corporation v. Beck

Citation248 F. 368
PartiesCARDINAL FILM CORP. v. BECK et al.
Decision Date01 March 1918
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

Nathan Burkan, of New York City, for complainant.

Louis Ogust, of New York City, for defendants.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.

If the complainant has a valid copyright of the motion picture play, "Joan the Woman," it has been infringed by the defendants. The defendants, however, argue that the copyright was invalid because there was no publication before the deposit of copies of the motion picture photoplay in the office of the librarian of Congress. This defense has been considered before by Judge Learned Hand in the case of Stern v. Jerome H. Remick (C.C.) 175 F. 282, where the court said that no publication was necessary other than the deposit in the Library of Congress. The same view of the law was taken by several of the judges in the case of Jewelers' Mercantile Agency v. Jewelers' Pub. Co., 155 N.Y. 241, 49 N.E. 872, 41 L.R.A. 846, 63 Am.St.Rep. 666, and by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Department in the case of Wright v. Eisle, 86 A.D. 356, 83 N.Y.Supp. 887. See, also, the opinion of Judge Putnam in the case of Ladd v. Oxnard (C.C.) 75 F. at page 730.

Section 62 of the Copyright Law, which provides that the date of publication in the case of a work, of which copies are reproduced for sale or distribution, shall be held to be the earliest date when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright, or under his authority, was an enactment to fix the date from which the copyright term should begin to run, and not a general definition of what constituted publication.

The usual decree should be granted for the complainant, upon the settlement of which I will hear counsel as to the amount to be awarded for infringement and counsel fees.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Roy Export Co. Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 4, 1982
    ...Technicon Medical Information Systems Corp. v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., No. 78-C-363 (E.D.Wis. Sept. 9, 1980); Cardinal Film Corp. v. Beck, 248 F. 368 (S.D.N.Y.1918). When such an "investive" publication occurs, the author has simply replaced his common-law protection with statutory prote......
  • American Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 23, 1981
    ...his authority ...."Section 26 has long been held to only define the date of publication and not publication itself. Cardinal Film Corp. v. Beck, 248 F. 368 (S.D.N.Y.1918); Hirshon v. United Artists Corp., 243 F.2d 640 (D.C.Cir.1957); 1 Nimmer § ...
  • American Visuals Corporation v. Holland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 20, 1956
    ...and distinguishing the earlier case on the ground that it was brought under the Copyright Act). Compare also Cardinal Film Corporation v. Beck, D.C.N.Y.1918, 248 F. 368, A. Hand, J., and Stern v. Jerome H. Remick & Co., D.C.N.Y.1915, 175 F. 282, L. Hand, J., both holding that deposit of two......
  • Shilkret v. Musicraft Records
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 9, 1942
    ...dicta having some general bearing on the subject, see Stern v. Jerome H. Remick & Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y., 175 F. 282, 283; Cardinal Film Corp. v. Beck, D.C.S. D.N.Y., 248 F. 368; Patterson v. Century Productions, 2 Cir., 93 F.2d 489, 491. Compare Joe Mittenthal v. Irving Berlin, D.C.S. D.N.Y., 2......
  • 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