Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 9,319. |
| Citation | 220 F. 359 |
| Parties | HILL v. WHALEN & MARTELL, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John J Sullivan, of New York City, for complainant.
Robert H. Elder, of New York City, for defendant.
The complainant in this case is the exclusive licensee of the dramatic rights of copyrighted cartoons which purport to show the features of two imaginary individuals to whom the artist has given the names of 'Mutt' and 'Jeff.' These dramatic rights are of great value. Mr. Bishop, the artist and author of the cartoons, has from them within a period of three years received between $60,000 and $70,000 in royalties.
The defendant arranged a dramatic performance, which he called 'In Cartoonland,' and in which he introduced as characters of considerable prominence two personages, to whom he gave the names of 'Nutt' and 'Giff.' They were 'Mutt' and 'Jeff.' Everybody so understood, and it was intended that everybody should so understand. They were costumed and made up with that end in view. The language used by them contained some important direct quotations from the more striking catchwords which had become familiar as the utterances of one or the other of these imaginary beings. The rest of the words put in their mouths were in substantial harmony with the characters given them by the original artist. The defendant says that his representation of them was a mere parody or burlesque of the original, and was so intended.
A copyrighted work is subject to fair criticism, serious or humorous. So far as is necessary to that end, quotations may be made from it, and it may be described by words representations, pictures, or suggestions. It is not always easy to say where the line should be drawn between the use which for such purposes is permitted and that which is forbidden.
One test which, when applicable, would seem to be ordinarily decisive, is whether or not so much as has been reproduced as will materially reduce the demand for the original. If it has, the rights of the owner of the copyright have been injuriously affected. A word of explanation will be here necessary. The reduction in demand, to be a ground of complaint, must result from the partial satisfaction of that demand by the alleged infringing production. A criticism of the original work, which lessened its money value by showing that it was not worth seeing or hearing, could not give any right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams & Wilkins Company v. United States
...of a copyrighted work when the new work is a substitute for, and diminishes the potential market for, the original. Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359 (S.D.N.Y.1914); Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (D.Mass. 1841). And it has been held that wholesale copying of a copyrighted work is n......
-
Loew's Incorporated v. Columbia Broadcasting System
...material was used, the principal part of defendants' performance, being stage business, there is no infringement. Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., D.C.N. Y.1914, 220 F. 359, involved the dramatization of plaintiff's copyrighted cartoon strip,32 Mutt and Jeff. The defendant was held to have i......
-
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
... ... See Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications Inc., 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940); Fleischer ... v. Fox Publications Inc., 46 F.Supp. 872 (S.D.N.Y.1942); Hill v. Whalen & Martell, ... Page 755 ... Inc., 220 F. 359 ... ...
-
Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc
...137 F.Supp. 348 (SD Cal.1955); Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. P.F. Collier & Son Co., 26 U.S.P.Q. 40, 43 (SDNY 1934); Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359, 360 (SDNY 1914). 28. "The world goes ahead because each of us builds on the work of our predecessors. 'A dwarf standing on the shoul......
-
The Copymark Creep: How the Normative Standards of Fan Communities Can Rescue Copyright
...1483.339. See generally Jamar, supra note 128; Lee, supra note 57.340. Jamar, supra note 128, at 870.341. Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) ("It is not always easy to say where the line should be drawn between the use which for such purposes is permitted and th......
-
Fair Use and Home Videotape Copying of Television Broadcasts
...1345, 1352-53 (Ct. CI. 1973), aff'd without opinion by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975). 46. Hill v. Whalen and Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1914): "One test which, when applicable, would seem to be ordinarily decisive, is whether or not so much as has been reproduc......