Acosta v. Brown

• Decision Date: 16 July 1943
• Citation: 50 F. Supp. 615
• Parties: ACOSTA v. BROWN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

50 F. Supp. 615

ACOSTA v.BROWN et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 16, 1943.

Austrian & Lance and Carl J. Austrian, all of New York City, for plaintiff.

Howard E. Reinheimer, of New York City, for defendant Brown.

McCauley and Henry and Alfred Wasserstrom, all of New York City, for defendant Hearst.

RIFKIND, District Judge.

The life of Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, is the subject matter of an uncopyrighted and unpublished screen play, entitled "Angels in Service," completed by plaintiff on September 1, 1940, and registered by her on September 9, 1940, at the offices of the Screen Writers' Guild in Hollywood, California.The same life story is the subject matter of an unpublished book entitled "Dedicated to Life," completed by defendant Brown in September, 1941.In the issue of March, 1942, of the Cosmopolitan Magazine, defendant Hearst published a "Digest" of defendant Brown's book under the title "War Nurse — The Biography of Clara Barton".

I have no doubt whatever that defendant Brown had access to plaintiff's story, directly or indirectly; directly through Markey whom she failed to call as a witness, in the face of testimony clearly marking him as the probable channel through which access was provided; or indirectly, through one or more of her numerous assistants, of varying degrees of literacy, whom she employed in what she euphemistically called "research".

I am equally certain that she copied.Her stout denials necessarily dissolve in the presence of the internal evidence which is so overwhelming as to exclude coincidence almost to a mathematical certainty.Both screen play and book contain the following characters: Tom Maxwell, Elisha Richards, Mather Richards, Eddie Johnson, Henry Adams, Arthur Holt and Eyra Jenks.All are fictional characters and names, the invention of plaintiff."Eyra" is the product of a mistyping by plaintiff of the name "Ezra".In both screen play and book the Kelly steel patent is identified as the clue through which Miss Barton discovers misconduct in the patent office; in both, February 3 is the date assigned for Maxwell's death.It is utterly incredible that coincidence can explain defendant Brown's use of these fictional names and incidents invented by plaintiff.

It may well be that defendant Brown mistook plaintiff's fiction for fact; and when she copied she took what she believed to be in the public domain.Her research was chiefly concerned with the hunt for dramatic situations rather than for historical accuracy.There is no doubt, however, that she copied, and since we must ascribe to her the intentions of her assistants, that she intended to copy.The selections she made were "made animo furandi, with intent to make use of them for the same purpose for which the original author used them."Farmer v. Elstner, C.C.E.D.Mich., 1888, 33 F. 494, 496.

Both plaintiff and defendant Brown were confronted by the problem that the life of Clara Barton presented an inadequate "love interest" to meet the demands of the market they hoped to reach.Plaintiff supplied the lack by inventing a lover.She placed him at the scene of Miss Barton's activities in the early stages of her life and caused him to participate in events which constitute part of the authenticated life story of her heroine.The natural result is an amalgam of fact and fiction.To illustrate: some one who had gone to the California gold fields bequeathed to Miss Barton a legacy of $10,000.Plaintiff ascribes this act to her invented suitor, Tom Maxwell.Defendant Brown does likewise.The historical fact of the legacy does not excuse the plagiarism of plaintiff's invention.More is here involved than the mere taking of the name of a character.Plaintiff can claim no literary property in the idea that a Clara Barton loved a Tom Maxwell; but plaintiff may obtain protection against defendant's copying her story of...