Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1912 |
| Parties | AEOLIAN CO. v. ROYAL MUSIC ROLL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
George D. Beattys, of New York City, for complainant.
Thayer & Tuttle, of Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant.
The question raised in this case involves the right of the complainant, the AEolian Company, under the copyright act of March 4, 1909, to restrain the defendant, the Royal Music Roll Company, from copying and duplicating perforated music rolls or records manufactured by the former. While, under the provisions of the copyright law, such music rolls or records are not strictly matters of copyright, Congress in passing the enactment evidently intended to protect copyright proprietors in their right to their productions, and to give them an exclusive right to print, publish, and vend the same. If the copyrighted work be a musical composition, the owner under the provisions of the statute, after complying therewith, has the exclusive right to perform it publicly for profit, and may, if he chooses so to do, make 'an arrangement or setting' of the musical composition published or copyrighted after the passage of the act, for mechanical reproduction. In this manner the copyright owner retains control of the right to manufacture music rolls, and the mechanical reproduction of such music or composition is optional with him. If he elects to mechanically reproduce it or knowingly acquiesces in such use of reproduction by another, 'any other person,' the act says, 'may make similar use of the copyrighted work' upon payment of a royalty.
The bill avers that, prior to making the music rolls or records in question, complainant was given permission and license to mechanically reproduce the copyrighted composition and to make perforated rolls therefrom. By such permission or license the owners of the copyright transferred to the licensees their right to manufacture perforated rolls, or parts, or instruments to mechanically reproduce the copyrighted music. The provision of the statute (section 1e) that 'any other person may make similar use of the copyrighted work' becomes automatically operative by the grant of the license; but the subsequent user does not thereby secure the right to copy the perforated rolls or records. He cannot avail himself of the skill and labor of the original manufacturer of the perforated roll or record by copying or duplicating the same, but must resort to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GAI Audio of New York, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
...use' and the basis for its application in the very first case to construe the language of the amendment of 1909, Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co., 196 F. 926 (W.D.N.Y.1912), where the District Court '. . . but the subsequent user does not thereby secure the right to copy the perforated r......
-
Goldstein v. California 8212 1192
...on S.646 and H.R.6927, supra, n. 5, at 11, 14. 26 Fonotipia, Ltd. v. Bradley, 171 F. 951, 963 (EDNY 1909). 27 Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co., 196 F. 926, 927 (WDNY 1912); Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, 327 Pa. 433, 437 438, 194 A. 631, 633—634 (1937); Capitol Records v. Mercury R......
-
Capitol Records v. Mercury Records Corporation
...2 Cir., 165 F.2d 784, said that a "victrola record cannot be copyrighted", citing Judge Hazel's opinion in Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 196 F. 926, 927, "While, under the provisions of the copyright law, such music rolls or records are not strictly matters of copyright......
-
Fame Pub. Co., Inc. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc.
...company. Such In our view, is not a similar use. 497 F.2d 285, 288. Duchess and Marks in turn find support in Aeolian Company v. Royal Music Roll Company, 196 F. 926 (W.D.N.Y.1912), the initial decision construing the compulsory license provision. The court there held that duplicating a pla......