Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1911 |
| Citation | 189 F. 90 |
| Parties | DA PRATO STATUARY CO. v. GIULIANI STATUARY CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Edward C. Stringer, McNeil V. Seymour, and Edward S. Stringer (Frank F. Reed and Edward S. Rogers, of counsel), for petitioner.
John E Stryker, for defendant.
WILLARD District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The motion of the complainant for a temporary injunction, so far as it is based upon the claim of unfair competition, is denied. It is necessary, however, to consider whether such an injunction should be granted on the ground that the defendant has infringed the complainant's copyright.
The complainant has offered evidence tending to show that 117 of the cuts contained in its catalogue have been copied in the defendant's catalogue; but no proof has been presented to show that any of these photographs so used by the defendant have been copyrighted by the complainant, except 18. The evidence shows that as to these 18 photographs or cuts the complainant has complied with the provisions of the law for the purpose of securing a copyright.
That cuts similar to these 18 cuts of the complainant appear in the defendant's catalogue is not disputed. Some attempt is made to explain the source from which the defendant derived its cuts. The affidavit of Giuliani and the affidavit of McCoy state that defendant's cut No. 372, which is like complainant's cut No. 2,739, was made from a photograph sent from Italy. Gaul, the president of the complainant, in his second affidavit states that this is impossible. An examination of the two cuts, in the light of what is said by Gaul in his affidavit, satisfies me beyond a doubt that the defendant's cut 372 was made, not from a photograph taken in Italy, but was made from a photograph of complainant's cut 2,739.
I am also satisfied that the same thing is true with reference to complainant's cut 2,737, copied by the defendant's cut 373, and complainant's cut 2,741 copied by defendant's cut 371. As to defendant's No. 371, it is to be observed that Giuliani says that it was taken from a photograph sent from Italy, while McCoy says it was copied from a photograph sent to the defendant by the Vermont Marble Company.
The defendant does not apparently deny that its cut No. 187 is a copy of the complainant's cut 913, but it says that cut 913, together with cut 2,737, had been previously published by the complainant in an uncopyrighted circular, or art review. This the complainant denies, and the defendant has not produced any such art review, which was not copyrighted.
The defendant further claims that complainant's cuts 346 348, and 349 were published in a catalogue of Benziger Bros of Cincinnati, without any reservation of copyright by the complainant. The defendant, however, produces no copy of that catalogue. This it should have done. List Pub. Co. v. Keller (C.C.) 30 F. 772.
As to the other cuts included in the 18 above mentioned, no explanation is offered by the defendant.
It having been proven that the defendant has copied one or more cuts, a finding that the others as to which no explanation is made were also copied is easily supported by the evidence. Chapman v. Ferry (C.C.) 18 F. 539, 542; Lawrence v. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 8,136. It is therefore proven that the defendant has copied 18 of the cuts included in the complainant's copyrighted catalogue, which cuts had not before appeared in any uncopyrighted publication.
The representations in the complainant's catalogue are proper subjects of copyright. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 Sup.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349; Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 23 Sup.Ct. 298, 47 L.Ed. 460.
A trade catalogue may be the subject of a copyright. Maple v. Junior Army & Navy Stores, Law Rep. 21, Chan.Div. 367 (1882).
In the case of Lamb v. Grand Rapids School Furniture Co. (C.C.) 39 F. 474 and which was a case of a trade catalogue, and was cited by the defendant, it did not appear that the defendant's cuts were copied from the plaintiff's cuts, and the court assumed that defendant's cuts were made from photographs of its own stock.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 66 Civ. 1532.
...1897); Henry Holt & Co., to Use of Felderman v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 23 F. Supp. 302 (E.D.Pa.1938); Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., 189 F. 90 (C.C.Minn.1911). When the materials from the Look articles used in the Random House biography, the facts and circumstances be......
-
Markham v. AE Borden Co.
...Brewster, Inc., v. Verstein, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 264; Mathews Conveyor Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co., 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 73; Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., C.C., 189 F. 90. This Court will follow the authority of these cases in the determination of this Before we can apply the "material......
-
Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.
...and, on the authority of that case and its citations, the decree of the Circuit Court is reversed. * * *" Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., 189 F. 90 (C. C., Minn., 1911). This case involved the infringement of a copyright of a catalogue containing pictures and cuts of statuar......
-
RR Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Haber
...be exactly reproduced in type, but would be by photographing them. Plaintiff's catalog is copyrightable matter. Da Prato Statuary Co. v. Giuliani Statuary Co., C.C., 189 F. 90; J. H. White Mfg. Co. v. Shapiro, D.C., 227 F. 957; Norris et al. v. No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co., D.C., 271 F. 536; B......