Hegeman v. Springer
| Decision Date | 17 July 1901 |
| Docket Number | 15. |
| Citation | 110 F. 374 |
| Parties | HEGEMAN et al. v. SPRINGER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Franklin Bien, for plaintiffs in error.
Truax & Crandall (William A. Hoy, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge, and WHEELER and BROWN, District Judges.
This is a writ of error upon a judgment of the circuit court upon a verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff in error for $2,075 for 2,075 sheets, found in possession of the plaintiff in error, and for the forfeiture of the sheets of a lithograph of an advertising picture called the 'Black Crook,' made in violation of a copyright.
The principal question of fact raised upon the trial related to the artistic quality of the production, which was submitted to the jury in a manner with which the plaintiff in error was apparently satisfied, and to which no exception was taken and about which no question now properly arises. The lithographer of the design for the copyright was asked what he knew about the preparation of it, which was objected to and the objection was overruled, to which exception was taken. The witness answered that he knew but little about the preparation of it, only that it was given him by Mr. Bandlow to reproduce on stone. Error is assigned upon this ruling and is sought to be sustained principally because Bandlow had not been, and was not, called. This production of the design to the lithographer appears, however, to have been a part of the res gestae, and admissible of itself, as such, without Bandlow. Another error assigned arose upon the admission of testimony that an employe of those taking out the copyright afterwards went on to the road with a Black Crook company. This also related to the history of the copyrighted picture, and may have been admissible as such at the state of the case when it was received; and whether this or the other evidence objected to was strictly so admissible when received or not, each became so wholly immaterial upon the issue finally given to the jury, that no influence upon the verdict is likely to have been so due to it that the verdict should be disturbed.
At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant moved to dismiss, 'on the ground that there has been no demand proven to entitle the plaintiff to a return of the property in question, it being an action in replevin, and that there is no allegation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuff v. La Budde Feed & Grain Co.
...432, 11 S.Ct. 731, 35 L.Ed. 470. Whether or not any particular production is a work of art is of course a question of fact. Hegeman v. Springer, 2 Cir., 110 F. 374. The courts have been quite liberal in extending copyright protection. For example, it has been held that ordinary photographs ......