Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1937 |
| Citation | 26 F. Supp. 39 |
| Parties | BASEVI v. EDWARD O'TOOLE CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Frank, Weil & Strouse, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Morgan, Finnegan & Durham, of New York City, for defendant.
Defendant's objections as to the sufficiency of the bill cannot be sustained.
The plaintiff's catalogues are books within the meaning and intent of the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and therefore a subject of copyright, and every pictorial illustration therein is a component part thereof and is protected by a copyright of the catalogue. See J. H. White Mfg. Co. v. Shapiro, D.C., 227 F. 957; Mail & Express Co. v. Life Publishing Co., 2 Cir., 192 F. 899; King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 2 Cir., 299 F. 533; Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., C.C., 189 F. 90; Jewelers' Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 2 Cir., 281 F. 83, 26 A.L.R. 571; National Cloak & Suit Co. v. Kaufman, C.C., 189 F. 215.
The catalogues are made a part of the bill and it accordingly appears by the bill whether or not the alleged books have a text and whether or not the text, if any, is in a language other than English.
The catalogues consist of a title page, on which appear the words "Editions N. B." and descriptive matter, such as "Catalogue of Reproductions of Religious Paintings", followed by pages containing reproductions of such paintings, each page, including the title page, bearing the words "Copyright 1934 (or 1935) by N. G. Basevi, Milano, Italy." They accordingly do not contain any text but only pictorial illustrations, the title of a copyrighted work not being the subject of copyright, and not constituting "text" in the ordinary meaning of the word. Atlas Mfg. Co. v. Street & Smith, 8 Cir., 204 F. 398, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 1002; Glaser v. St. Elmo Co., C.C., 175 F. 276. Judge Caffey expressed a similar conclusion in his opinion on the former motion to dismiss.
It appearing by the complaint that there is no text in the subject copyrighted, it is unnecessary to allege whether the text is in English or in a foreign language or that the text was printed and the catalogue bound in the United States in accordance with 17 U.S.C., § 15, 17 U.S.C.A. § 15.
The allegation in the bill (paragraph Tenth) that "on or about the 16th day of July, 1934, the plaintiff being then the sole and exclusive proprietor and owner of said paintings and of the said book which had never before been printed or published in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.
...a motion, of course, the relevant facts alleged in the complaint were pro hac vice admitted. Judge Bondy denied this motion and held, 26 F.Supp. 39: 1. That plaintiff's catalogues were "books" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, that they had sufficient originality to be copyrightable ......
-
Sieff v. Continental Auto Supply
...Cir., 59 F.2d 70, 74; Smith v. Bartlett, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 35, 37; Smith v. Wilkinson, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 841, 842; and Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 39, 48. In Bentley v. Tibbals, 2 Cir., 223 F. 247, 257, it appears that the plaintiff Bentley published in 1906 a copyrighted b......
- Buck v. Dacier, 4478.