General Drafting Co. v. Andrews, 174.

Decision Date06 January 1930
Docket NumberNo. 174.,174.
Citation37 F.2d 54
PartiesGENERAL DRAFTING CO., Inc., v. ANDREWS et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Knight Bros., of New York City (Ray T. Ernst, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Nathaniel Cohen, of New York City, and Donald F. Ayres, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellees.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

MACK, Circuit Judge.

An injunction and statutory damages for the alleged infringement of four copyrighted automobile road maps was sought by and denied to plaintiff, appellant. The maps are entitled (1) "Standard Road Map of New Jersey and Contiguous Territory," published in 1923; (2) "Socony Road Map of New England 1925"; (3) Socony Road Map of New York 1925"; and (4) "Tourist Map of Pennsylvania," published in 1925. The alleged infringement consists of a single composite map entitled "Cleartype Road Map, featuring Main Travel Routes within the Greater Metropolitan Area," published in 1926; it covers the greater part of New Jersey, the eastern portion of Pennsylvania, the southern part of New York, and Connecticut.

Automobile maps similar to those in suit are clearly the subject of copyright within section 5(f) of the Copyright Act (17 U. S. C. § 5(f), 17 USCA § 5(f); see Woodman v. Lydiard-Peterson Co. C. C. 192 F. 67), and are also compilations, abridgements, adaptations, or arrangements of previously copyrighted materials or works in the public domain within section 6 (17 U. S. C. § 6 17 USCA § 6). We need not discuss the authorities either in this or in other jurisdictions; they were fully considered by this court in Jeweler's Circular Publishing Company v. Keystone Publishing Company, 281 F. 83, 26 A. L. R. 571, and the writer reviewed them in W. H. Anderson Co. v. Baldwin Law Publishing Company, 27 F. (2d) 82 (C. C. A. 6th).

In order properly to determine the sole issue before us, that of infringement, it is necessary to outline briefly the method by which the maps were prepared and to indicate the features which render them the subject of copyright. The method pursued by plaintiff in preparing its New Jersey map is typical. Two sets of topographical maps prepared by the Geological Survey of the Department of Interior, covering the desired area, were secured; through personal interviews, detailed information concerning road conditions was obtained from the county engineers in each New Jersey county and was recorded on one of the Geological Survey maps. The condition of each road was designated as "first class," "second class," or "third class," having regard solely to its availability for automobile travel. In addition, the actual physical condition of the road was in many cases verified by travel. The detailed information thus collected was transferred to a base map composed of a large number of individual Geological Survey maps. At this stage, the process of selection was begun; a large tracing was made of the assembled section maps, but only such information as the mapmaker thought would be of use to motorists was taken over — that is, selected highways, rivers, towns, state lines, etc. The relative condition of each road was indicated on the tracing by a double, heavy single, or thin single line. The large tracing was photographically reduced to the desired size; a smaller tracing was then made, on which the information was finally audited and corrected before the final map was "hand drawn" from this tracing. Considerable variation in road meanderings, shore lines, position of town and population symbols, and general scale are usual in order to accommodate the printed matter which is "hand-stamped" on the final map; consequently the maps of each mapmaker possess a final individual appearance and style.

Comparison of the base maps and sectional or detail maps with the finished product show a considerable amount of originality in preparation. The final maps are manifestly different from those used in making them, and represent a great deal of skill, labor, and expense. The elements of the copyright consist in the selection, arrangement, and presentation of the component parts. Plaintiff's maps in suit have acquired a very considerable reputation, and are sold in great numbers to the highway departments of the several states and to a number of the larger motor fuel companies.

(1) It is conceded that, if defendants' map had been constructed after an independent investigation of the original sources in the public domain, without copying, plaintiff's case would fail. Superficially the maps are not alike. Somewhat different symbols are used to indicate population sizes; different markings are employed to indicate road conditions; defendants' map is a single composite map covering a large area, embracing that covered by four of plaintiff's maps. But in our judgment plaintiff established a strong prima facie showing of copying by pointing out a convincing number of similarities in style, appearance, and selection of roads and towns, and a relatively great number of identical errors and peculiarities in spelling between its and defendants' maps. It is not necessary to review all of these common errors, ably and clearly presented by counsel; it suffices to point out a few of the more striking ones: (a) Plaintiff introduced a table showing some twenty alleged misspellings common to both maps. While a few of these appear upon examination to be alternative spellings, there are at least sixteen clear mistakes made by plaintiff and repeated by defendants. One or two might have been coincidental or have resulted from the fact that Tudor, who prepared defendants' map, had been employed as a mapmaker by plaintiff; but sixteen common errors (plus some more ascertained at a later date) is so large a number as to leave practically no doubt that he went far beyond the permissible use of plaintiff's maps to compare and check his own independent results, and actually copied plaintiff's work to a considerable extent. (b) Another table showed some seventeen common errors in population symbols, in many cases wrong by several thousands. (c) The inadvertent placing of the Walkill river on the wrong side of the main highway between two New York towns was duplicated on defendant's map. (d) In at least four instances plaintiff had arbitrarily ended roads at a point short of the actual highway endings; these are repeated on defendants' map....

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Roberts v. Dahl, 55927
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 28, 1972
    ...character of incidents or in a striking similiarity which passes the bounds of mere accident. General Drafting Co. v. Andrews (2d Cir.), 37 F.2d 54; W. H. Anderson Co. v. Baldwin Law Publishing Co. (6 Cir.) 27 F.2d 82; Simonton v. Gordon, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 12 F.2d (Also see Arnstein v. Porter, ......
  • Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., Llp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 27, 2003
    ...Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, vol. 4, § 13.03[C], pp. 13-75 to 13-77 (2002); see also General Drafting Co. v. Andrews, 37 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir.1930) (errors as distinct from deliberately set traps). And that the case with regard to form 52566. Bucklew's version cont......
  • Kalo Inoculant Co. v. Funk Bros. Seed Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 12, 1947
    ...creates a presumption of unlawful copying, which must be overcome by the defendant." To the same effect is General Drafting Co., Inc. v. Andrews et al., 2 Cir., 37 F.2d 54. When the burden of proof is once fixed as to a particular issue, in a strict sense, the burden of producing a preponde......
  • Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • September 30, 1959
    ...1878, 99 U.S. 674, 675, 25 L.Ed. 308; Woodman v. Lydiard-Peterson Co., C.C.Minn., 1912, 192 F. 67, 69-70; General Drafting 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.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • AS A MATTER OF FACT: COPYRIGHTING FICTITIOUS ENTRIES WITHIN REFERENCE WORKS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 2, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...the maps of four townships in Ford County. Directory Service's maps contained 54 of the 56 trap initials."); Gen. Drafting Co., v. Andrews, 37 F.2d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 1930) ("[S]ixteen common errors (plus some more ascertained at a later date) is so large a number as to leave practically no do......

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