Fawcett Publications v. Elliot Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1942 |
| Citation | 46 F. Supp. 717 |
| Parties | FAWCETT PUBLICATIONS, Inc., v. ELLIOT PUB. CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
De Witt, Van Aken & Nast, of New York City (William R. Lonergan, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Maurice J. Fleishman, of New York City, for defendant.
This is a motion for summary judgment made by the plaintiff, the action being for an alleged infringement of a copyright. We note that the plaintiff states there is also involved a claim for unfair competition, but we find no such claim in the pleadings.
The plaintiff is engaged in the magazine publishing business as is the defendant. The plaintiff, on or about April 18, 1941, being then the author and proprietor of a publication known as "Wow Comics, No. 2 Summer Edition," copyrighted it and was, therefore, entitled to the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and vend it. Subsequent to this publication's issuance the defendant purchased secondhand copies of it and of another copyrighted publication of the plaintiff, which he makes the subject of the second cause of action, and bound them together with other comic publications not owned or copyrighted by the plaintiff within one copyrighted cover of its own with the words "Double Comics" thereon.
Section 1 of Title 17, U.S.C.A. grants to the copyright owner the exclusive right "to print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work * * *." The alleged infringement as set forth in the complaint is that the defendant published and placed upon the market said "Double Comics" containing the complete issue of plaintiff's publication, without its consent or approval, so that as thus limited, it must be determined whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's admitted exclusive right to publish and to vend. The decisions appear to be uniform that the purpose and effect of the copyright statute is to secure to the owner thereof the exclusive right to multiply copies. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S.Ct. 722, 52 L.Ed. 1086; Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 2 Cir., 281 F. 83, 26 A.L.R. 571, certiorari denied 259 U.S. 581, 42 S.Ct. 464, 66 L.Ed. 1074. It is conceded here that the defendant has not multiplied copies but merely resold the plaintiff's under a different cover. The exclusive right to vend is limited. It is confined to the first sale of any one copy and exerts no restriction on the future sale of that copy. Bureau of National Literature v. Sells, D.C., 211 F. 379; Straus v. American Publishers' Ass'n, 231 U.S. 222, 34 S. Ct. 84, 58...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Golden
...literary content is remote and its authorship and ownership do not prima facie appear as in the case of the book's contents. 46 F.Supp. 717, 718 (D.C.N.Y. 1942), this statement was made without any citations to any authority and, as noted, was made on reargument. In its initial opinion the ......
-
American Intern. Pictures, Inc. v. Foreman
...exclusive right to vend a copy of a copyrighted work extends only to the first sale of that copy. See Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Elliot Publishing Co., 46 F.Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y.1942). After the first sale of a copy the copyright holder has no control over the occurrence or conditions of f......
- Cargill v. United States, Civil Action No. 238.
-
Fortnightly Corporation v. United Artists Television, Inc
...Increased charges were levied for additional television sets and for commercial establishments. 8 See, e.g., Fawcett Publications v. Elliot Publishing Co., D.C., 46 F.Supp. 717; Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc., 9 Cir., 281 F.2d 543, 547—548. 'The fundamental (is) that 'use' is not the same t......
-
Free access and the future of copyright.
...[section] 106(3) is limited by the "first sale" doctrine to the initial sale of a copy. See Fawcett Pub., Inc. v. Elliot Publ. Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. (5.) To clarify, I'm speaking of America Online's proprietary content, which it is free to market as it chooses. Insofar as America O......