Italian Book Co. v. Cardilli
| Decision Date | 28 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | E 15-119. |
| Parties | ITALIAN BOOK CO. v. CARDILLI. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Samuel F. Frank, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Mr Barra, for defendant.
The subject-matter of this suit is of no great value. The principle is important and should be decided authoritatively. So far as I am concerned, it remains, after the investigations of both counsel and myself, a matter of first impression.
An Italian wrote a song in Italy, and another Italian furnished music therefor; both words and music were published in Naples in 1913, and forthwith copyrighted in accordance with the law of Italy. Each copy of said words and music sold, stated in Italian who was the proprietor, that said proprietor owned the rights for all countries, and that all rights were reserved.
The song was popular, and four years later the Italian proprietor sold to the plaintiff, an American corporation, the privilege of copyrighting and selling the same in the United States apparently on a royalty basis. Thereupon the plaintiff did copyright words and music; the registration being of December 10, 1917, and the date of original publication stated as September 1, 1913. The defendant copied words and music and sold the same after this registration date. There are no intervening rights, as that phrase is commonly used in patent litigation.
The question (very easy to put) is this: Did the publication in Italy prevent American copyright four years later? Copyright being wholly statutory, we must first look at the act. Comp St. Secs. 9517-9524, 9530-9584. It is entirely silent on the subject; I can discover nothing which in terms precludes a proprietor doing exactly what this plaintiff has done.
The whole line of cases, holding that publication without copyrighting destroys the right to a subsequent copyright, are either founded on statutes differing from the present one, or on a proven publication in the country of the court rendering the decision. It seems to me as a matter of first impression that the publication in Italy was, by the terms of the notice printed or stamped on each copy sold, limited to Italy, and did not (in the absence of statutory prohibition) prevent the subsequent American copyright, if (as is the case here) there had been no publication in the United States prior to that of the copyright owner.
The novelty of this litigation arises from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heim v. Universal Pictures Co.
...the copyright was secured by publication." It is against the view of such expert copyright judges as Hough, J., in Italian Book Co. v. Cardilli, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 273 F. 619, and Universal Film Mfg. Co. v. Copperman, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 212 F. 301, affirmed 2 Cir., 218 F. 577, certiorari denied 235 U......
-
Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.
...v. Duff, C.C., 25 F. 183, 194; and cf. Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424, 434, 32 S.Ct. 263, 56 L.Ed. 492. The case of Italian Book Company v. Cardilli, D.C., 273 F. 619, cited by the plaintiff's counsel, must, I think, be regarded as having been overruled by the Circuit Court of Appeals in t......
- United States v. Blumberg