Brightley v. Littleton
| Decision Date | 24 November 1888 |
| Citation | 37 F. 103 |
| Parties | BRIGHTLY v. LITTLETON et al. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
F. F Brightley, pro se.
David W. Sellers, for defendants.
The plaintiff's copyright is valid. The act of congress provides that 'any citizen of the United States * * * who shall be the author, inventor, designer, or proprietor of any book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving cut, print, photograph, drawing, chromo, statute, or statuary, * * * shall, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter, have the sole liberty of printing, publishing * * * and vending the same. ' This act is founded on the constitutional provision which confers on congress the power to protect authors and inventors in their respective works. The object of the art and constitutional provision, as expressed, is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and their discoveries. ' The language of the act must be read in connection with the constitutional provision, and be so construed as to promote the object and conform to the purpose expressed therein.
If the question before me were new, I might find some difficulty in sustaining the plaintiff's claim. The statute, however has been so liberally construed as to make it embrace within the term 'book,' every character of publication whether a volume, pamphlet, newspaper article, calendar, or catalogue. In this construction our courts have simply followed those of England in their interpretation of similar language contained in the English statute. The matter must be original and possess some possible utility. The originality, however, may be of the lowest order, and the utility barely perceptible; Drone, Copyr. 210. It has been repeatedly held that a book of forms is entitled to the protection of the statutes. The plaintiff's forms are original in the sense here involved. They are founded upon and are adapted to the requirements of the Pennsylvania statute of 1887, relating to the sale of liquors. While minor parts of each form are old, they are so combined with the parts drawn in pursuance of the statute as to make a complete form. To prepare such instruments requires some learning, and involves some literary labor; quite as much as the compilation of facts or figures, or extracts from books. Such compilations are entitled to a copyright, under the construction given to the statute; Drone, Copyr. 208-210. The plaintiff's right, however, protects him only against transcribing and publishing his forms; in other words, against the appropriation of his work. It does not confer upon him a monopoly of the forms required by the statute of 1887. Any one is at liberty to prepare and publish such forms, and it is immaterial that they may resemble his, or be substantially identical with them, provided they are not copies. The requirements of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Casualty Company v. Beardsley
...1931, 283 U.S. 858, 51 S.Ct. 650, 75 L.Ed. 1464; W. H. Anderson Co. v. Baldwin Law Pub. Co., 6 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 82; Brightley v. Littleton, C.C.E.D.Pa.1888, 37 F. 103; Edward Thompson Co. v. American Law Book Co., 2 Cir., 1903, 122 F. 922, 62 L.R.A. 607; Chautauqua School of Nursing v. N......
-
Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.
...and other printed advertising, Fargo Merc. Co. v. Brechet & Richter Co., supra; blank forms for liquor licenses, Brightley v. Littleton, 37 F. 103 (C. C., E. D. Pa.). On the proposition that it requires a low degree of originality and artistic or literary merit to constitute an advertisemen......
-
Rassamni v. Fresno Auto Spa, Inc.
...in the exact form or substantially so of the copyrighted material should be required." Id. at 874 (citing Brightley v. Littleton , 37 F. 103 (E.D. Penn. 1888) (holding that forms created through "some learning, and involv[ing] some literary labor" are protected only against "transcribing an......
-
Burndy Engineering Co. v. Penn-Union Electric Corp.
...Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Dunston Lithograph Co., D.C., 233 F. 601; Woodman v. Lydiard-Peterson Co., C.C., 192 F. 67, 70; Brightley v. Littleton, C.C., 37 F. 103; J. H. White Mfg. Co. v. Shapiro, D.C., 227 F. The contention by defendants that tabulations of sizes and dimensions are not su......