Eisman v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1938 |
| Citation | 23 F. Supp. 519 |
| Parties | EISMAN et al. v. SAMUEL GOLDWYN, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
William Klein, of New York City (Milton R. Weinberger, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Schwartz & Frohlich, of New York City (Louis D. Frohlich, and Herman Finkelstein, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., and Samuel Goldwyn.
David L. Podell, of New York City (Herman Shulman, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Eddie Cantor.
O'Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, of New York City, for defendant United Artists Corporation.
This motion to dismiss the complaint herein is granted.
The defendants may have a decree dismissing the complaint with costs which, in respect of that part of the cause founded on the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., will, under Section 40 thereof, 17 U. S.C.A. § 40, include reasonable counsel fees to the defendants.
I. This is a motion based on the practice approved by me in Lowenfels v. Nathan, D.C., 2 F.Supp. 73, 74, and explained more fully by my decision in Shipman v. R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc., et al., D.C., 20 F.Supp. 249.
This practice is not now novel for it has been followed in other cases in this district than those just mentioned. E. g. inter alia Caruthers v. R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc., D.C., 20 F.Supp. 906; Ornstein v. Paramount Productions, Inc., D.C., 9 F.Supp. 896, 901, 902.
II. My subject matter jurisdiction is based, in respect of the copyrighted version of the plaintiffs' work, on the Copyright Act.
In respect of the uncopyrighted version of the plaintiffs' work, it is based on diversity of citizenship, for the plaintiffs are all citizens and residents of the State of New York, the defendants Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., and United Artists Corporation are corporations of the State of Delaware, and the defendant Eddie Cantor is a citizen of the State of California.
That left the citizenship of Samuel Goldwyn unaccounted for until the argument, but in open Court thereat on April 5, 1938, it was agreed that the complaint should be amended so as to allege that Samuel Goldwyn was a citizen and resident of the State of California, and that the answer should be deemed amended so as to admit this fact, and it was so ordered.
III. A full oral argument was had in this cause before me on April 5, 1938.
Before that argument, and in preparation therefor, I had carefully read — in connection with the plaintiffs' bill of particulars — the plaintiffs' copyrighted and uncopyrighted version of their play "Oh, Shah!", and the defendants' cutting continuity of their infringing moving picture "Roman Scandals" which was alleged to infringe both the works of the plaintiffs.
After the oral argument, I determined to review the whole case again and to reread all three documents involved in connection with the plaintiffs' bill of particulars.
IV. As I have repeatedly pointed out in other motions of this kind, access by the defendants to the plaintiffs' work is implicitly admitted by the form of procedure here adopted by the defendants.
Consequently, what I have had to determine herein is — by a comparison of the works of the plaintiffs and the works of the defendants — whether, with access assumed, the defendants made unfair use of a sufficient amount of the plaintiffs' copyrightable material to justify a holding of infringement. Dymow v. Bolton, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 690, 692; Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 119, 121; Lowenfels v. Nathan, D.C., 2 F.Supp. 73, 79.
As Judge Hough, speaking for the District Court for this District in Frankel v. Irwin et al., 34 F.2d 142, 144, pointed out, the test to be applied in all such comparisons as this is that of the library rather than that of the dissecting room — namely — the effect on the imagination of the judge of a comparative reading of the works in question. And cf. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 119, 123.
That is the test I have given to the works here involved, and having done so I hold that there clearly has not been any such unfair use of the plaintiffs' work as would justify a decree in their favor. I cannot really see any foundation whatever for their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartin v. Boles
...even considering alleged similarities, parallels, and possible appropriations as to the English language. See Eisman v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 23 F.Supp. 519, 520; Shipman v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 20 F.Supp. 249, 250. This enumeration of error is not meritorious. W......
-
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & C. Corp.
...731; Dubil v. Rayford Camp & Co. (9 Cir. 1950) 184 F.2d 899, 902; Burnett v. Lambino (S.D.N.Y. 1962) 206 F.Supp. 517; Eisman v. Samuel Goldwyn (S.D.N.Y.1938) 23 F.Supp. 519, reversed on other grounds, Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn (2 Cir. 1939) 104 F.2d 661.) If an action combines patent and non......
-
De Montijo v. 20th Century Fox Film
...room — namely — the effect on the imagination of the judge of a comparative reading of the works in question." Eisman v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., D.C., 23 F.Supp. 519, page 520. Frankel v. Irwin, "In suit for infringement of common-law copyright to unpublished manuscript by defendant's moving ......
-
Christianson v. West Pub. Co.
...and there was no proof that the "continuity" or abbreviated version correctly represented the infringing film. Eisman v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 23 F.Supp. 519. The Circuit Court in that case even stated that "Should it the synopsis turn out to be a faithful representation, the bill should be......