Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | 1,193. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | HARTFORD PRINTING CO. v. HARTFORD DIRECTORY & PUBLISHING CO. |
Ralph O. Wells, Esq., for complainant.
Chas E. Perkins, Esq., and Augustine Lonergan, Esq., for defendant.
This case does not stir the conscience very much, and after analysis the reason for such a condition of things unfolds itself. Under the Constitution, the Congress may pass laws which will 'tend to promote the useful arts and sciences ' For that purpose the present copyright law was enacted. The plaintiff invokes the law because he was the owner proprietor, and compiler of a book. In so far as he may have used his brains to get up an artistic book in the way of grouping, classifying, and setting forth the facts which it contains, there would be reason in his claim; but in so far as he merely records accurately the names of residents, with their occupations, and where to find them at home and in business, it is impossible to discover wherein the useful arts and sciences are promoted. The labor involved therein is purely mechanical, and to protect the copyright affords a certain measure of monopoly in the right to make such a use of labor and money. Copyrights upon directories have however, been cared for by the courts so many times that it would be presumptuous for me, without solicitation, to attempt a practical expression of my own views. The complainant's lawful copyright is therefore assumed, and, sternly repressing such tendencies as these suggestions would lead us toward, it will be my purpose to decide the matter upon the case presented.
Complainant issued and copyrighted its 1904 directory. Defendant came to Hartford, and made an independent canvass for a 1905 directory, which it insists was thorough, and about which I will express no opinion, except as the facts throw light thereon. Undoubtedly a strong showing at a canvass was made. After completing a canvass of such a nature, it took up the complainant's 1904 directory, and, after comparing the alleged original canvass therewith, found something like 10,000 discrepancies. Thereupon the defendant claims that it sent the canvassers over the ground again to find the reason for such differences, and to make the needed corrections, and, after doing so, published its directory. The facts, as this opinion indicates, lead me otherwise, but if upon them I could find that the defendant, unaided by the copyrighted matter, made an original, thorough, house to house canvass, and then, after comparison with said matter, made a careful, thorough search to find the reason for the discrepancies which such comparison revealed, the case would go with the defendant, because it is believed that the law permits such a use of a copyrighted directory. The complainant seriously insists that the law is not so, but the reasoning in support of the contention is not persuasive.
Complainant admits that the defendant may compare its work with the copyright, and can check to see whether the canvass has been thorough, but insists that if it shall find that it has made mistakes they cannot be corrected, because to do so would be an indirect mode of copying. Such a construction of the law would make the complainant's copyright a substantial monopoly, and by repeating annually the registration it could prevent everybody from using its directory for the purpose which is admitted to be lawful. Moffatt v. Gill, 86 Law Times Rep. 465, expresses the rule in directory cases which has been sanctioned by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is true that it was obiter in both cases, but it is such a reasonable rule that I am bound to conclude that it will become the law of this circuit, if it has not formally become so already. The judge who wrote in Moffatt v. Gill plainly agreed with counsel that the cases relating to directories say that you cannot take another man's sheets and reprint them as your own, but you may take his sheets with you, and ascertain by personal investigation whether they are correct, and if you find that they are you may publish the result as your own. In my opinion, the cases, both English and American, all come to this: You must not bodily transmit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Business Lists v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...(W.D.Ark.1974); Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425 (S.D.Fla.1940); and Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Pub. Co., 146 F. 332 (D.Conn. 1906); rating books, Produce Reporter Co. v. Fruit Produce Rating Agency, supra; (and see Dun v. Lumbermen's Cr......
-
West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co.
... 169 F. 833 WEST PUBLISHING CO. v. EDWARD THOMPSON CO. United States Circuit ... preparation, editing, publishing, printing, and distributing. of law publications, in the nature of ... cases in which the copyright of a dictionary, directory, or. map has been held infringed by the publication of ... List Pub. Co. v. Keller (C.C.) 30 F. 774;. Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Pub. Co. (C.C.) 146 ......
-
New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, Inc.
...(1st Cir. 1942); American Travel & Hotel Directory Co. v. Gehrig Publishing Co., 4 F.2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1925); Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Publishing Co., 146 F. 332, damages awarded, 148 F. 470 (C.C.D.Conn. 1906); Social Register Association v. Murphy, 129 F. 148 (C.C.D.R.I......
-
Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 188.
......It remains the property of the. Keystone Publishing Company, and must be returned in order. to receive the new ... compiling, and printing its book, entitled 'The. Jewelers' Index,' has, as a ... . The. Century Dictionary defines a directory as:. . . . 'A. book containing an ...Seaver-Radford Co., 140 F. 539, 72 C.C.A. 55; Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford. Directory & Publishing Co. ......