Falk v. T.P. Howell & Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1888 |
| Citation | 37 F. 202 |
| Parties | FALK v. T. P. HOWELL & CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Isaac N. Falk, for complainant.
William C. Wallace, for defendants.
Since the decision of the supreme court in Burrow-Giles Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279, there can be no doubt that a photograph which has the artistic merits possessed by the complainant's photograph is the subject of a copyright. The only question is, do the defendants infringe? That their design is copied directly from the copyrighted photograph is not denied, but it is urged that infringement is avoided, because it is larger than the photograph, and is stamped on leather, and is intended for the bottom or back of a chair. It is thought that this proposition cannot be maintained. Differences which relate merely to size and material are not important. They may affect the question of damages, but not the question of infringement. The complainant is entitled to the usual decree.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loew's Incorporated v. Columbia Broadcasting System
...by the appellant's employee. Doing this is omitting the work of the artisan, but appropriating the genius of the artist. Falk v. T. P. Howell & Co., C.C., 37 F. 202." Emphasis The emphasized words from the King case, supra,34 have been quoted and relied upon in Nutt v. National Institute, e......
-
Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc.
...of a photograph); Bracken v. Rosenthal, 151 F. 136 (C.C. N.D.Ill.1907 (photograph of a piece of sculpture); Falk v. T. P. Howell & Co., 37 F. 202 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1888) (reproduction of photograph stamped in relief on leather of chairs); M. J. Golden & Company v. Pittsburgh Brewing Co., 137 F.......
-
Walco Products, Inc. v. Kittay & Blitz, Inc.
...v. Fleisher, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934); Falk v. Howell, 37 F. 202 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.1888). Defendants have apparently infringed plaintiff's copyrighted work of art by reproducing in two-dimensional form the works f......
-
Rogers v. Koons
...change in medium does not preclude infringement. That has long been the rule of this Court and the Second Circuit. In Falk v. T.P. Howell & Co., 37 F. 202 (S.D.N.Y.1988), defendant, a chair manufacturer, copied plaintiff's copyrighted photograph "and stamped a raised figure, like the pictur......