Ford v. Charles E. Blaney Amusement Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1906
• Citation: 148 F. 642
• Parties: FORD v. CHARLES E. BLANEY AMUSEMENT CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

148 F. 642

FORD v. CHARLES E. BLANEY AMUSEMENT CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

November 5, 1906

Elder &amp Roehr (Robert H. Elder and Ralph Royall, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Mayer C. Goldman, for defendants.

HOLT District Judge.

This is a demurrer to a complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The action is brought to recover damages for an alleged violation by the defendants of the complainant's right of dramatization of a novelette. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the complainant is the author of a novelette called 'Cherub Divine'; that the complainant sold to the Ainslee Magazine Company of New York the sole right of printing and publishing the said novelette, reserving to the complainant all rights of dramatization of it; that the Ainslee Magazine Company, as agent, for and in behalf of and for the purpose of protecting the rights of the complainant in the said novelette, deposited in the office of the Librarian of Congress on January 16, 1905, the title of their monthly publication, as follows: 'Ainslee's Volume 15, No. 1, February, 1905,' which said publication contained the said novelette; that said Ainslee Magazine Company thereafter duly took the various proceedings necessary to obtain a copyright of said Ainslee's volume 15, No. 1, February, 1905; that the defendants, in violation of the complainant's right of dramatization of the said novelette, had composed and prepared for stage production a dramatization of the said novelette in a play called the 'Millionaire Detective'; that said play has been performed in various cities; and that the defendants are about to produce said play in other cities, and a judgment for damages is demanded in the sum of $15,000.

There are two important questions raised by this demurrer. One is whether the proprietor of a magazine, who becomes the proprietor of an article published in it, copyrights the article by filing in the office of the Librarian of Congress the title page of the magazine and by otherwise complying with the provisions of the copyright act. There is not much authority upon that question. It has been suggested that, in order to secure a copyright of an article published with other articles in a periodical, it is not enough to deliver at the office of the Librarian of Congress a printed copy of the title of the periodical, and to publish the copyright notice required by the statute on the title page or the next page of the periodical; but it is claimed that a copy of the title of each article in respect to which copyright is claimed, must be filed, and a copyright notice inserted at the head of each article. But I think such a construction too strict. The copyright act, in my opinion, should be liberally construed with a view to protect the just rights of authors, and to encourage literature and art. I think that the filing of the title of a magazine is sufficient to secure a copyright of the articles in it, if they are written or owned by the proprietor of the magazine. Bennett v. Boston Traveller Co., 101 F. 445, 41 C.C.A. 445. I cannot see how there can be any question of the validity of such a proceeding if the proprietor of the magazine is the author or the proprietor of all the articles published in it; and if he is the author or proprietor of some of the articles, and not of others, I do not see why a copyright so registered is not valid as to the articles which he either wrote or owns. I think, therefore, that a valid copyright...