Littleton v. Oliver Ditson Co.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1894 |
| Docket Number | 3,065. |
| Citation | 62 F. 597 |
| Parties | LITTLETON et. al. v. OLIVER DITSON CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Lauriston L. Scaife, for complainants.
Chauncey Smith and Linus M. Child, for defendant.
This case raises a new and important question under the copyright act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1106). The plaintiffs subjects of Great Britain, and publishers of music, have copyrighted three musical compositions, two of which are in the form of sheet music, and one (a cantata) consists of some 90 pages of music bound together in book form, and with a paper cover. Two of these pieces were printed from electrotype plates, and one from stone by the lithographic process. The inquiry in this case is whether a musical composition is a book or lithograph within the meaning of the proviso in section 3 of the act, which declares that in the case of a 'book, photograph, chromo, or lithograph' the two copies required to be deposited with the librarian of congress shall be manufactured in this country.
The act of March 3, 1891, is an amendment of the copyright law then existing. The principal change made is the extension of the privilege of copyright to foreigners by the removal of the restriction of citizenship or residence contained in the old law, and hence it is sometimes called the 'International Copyright Act'. Section 1 relates to the subject-matter of copyright, and declares that:
'The author, inventor, designer or proprietor of any book, map chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut print, or photograph or negative thereof, or of a painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statuary, * * * shall, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter, have the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing,' etc.
Section 3 recites the conditions which must be complied with, and says:
'No person shall be entitled to a copyright unless he shall, on or before the day of publication in this or any foreign country, deliver at the office of the librarian of congress, or deposit in the mail within the United States, addressed to the librarian * * * a printed copy of the title of the book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, photograph, or chromo, or a description of the painting, drawing, statue, statuary, * * * for which he desires a copyright, nor unless he shall also, not later than the day of the publication thereof in this or any foreign country, deliver at the office of the librarian * * * or deposit in the mail within the United States, addressed to the librarian * * * two copies of such copyright book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, chromo, cut, print, or photograph, or in case of a painting, drawing, statue, statuary, model, or design for a work of the fine arts, a photograph of same: provided, that in the case of a book, photograph, chromo, or lithograph, the two copies of the same required to be delivered or deposited as above shall be printed from type set within the limits of the United States, or from plates made therefrom, or from negatives, or drawings on stone made within the limits of the United States, or from transfers made therefrom.'
From the language of these provisions it seems clear that 'book' was not intended to include 'musical composition'. In the section which enumerates the things which may be copyrighted, 'musical composition' is mentioned as something different from 'book', and we find this same distinction twice observed in the preceding part of the section which contains the proviso. It is as reasonable to suppose that 'book' and 'musical composition' were as much intended to refer to different subjects as 'map, chart, engraving,' and other enumerated articles.
If congress, in the proviso, had intended to include a musical composition among those copyrighted things which must be manufactured in this country, it should have incorporated it in the list of things subject to this restriction. The omission in the proviso of 'musical composition', as well as of 'map, chart, engraving', and other things before enumerated, is very significant, as indicating that congress never intended to extend this provision to any of these articles. And so, with respect to 'lithograph' if congress had intended to cover by that word a musical composition made by the lithographic process it should have expressed its meaning in clear and unambiguous terms, in view of the language used in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiffany Productions v. Dewing
...and of applicants for copyrights. Such interpretation is strengthened by the last paragraph of section 5. The case of Littleton v. Oliver Ditson Co. (C. C.) 62 F. 597, is stressed as requiring a contrary conclusion. But that case involved different provisions of the law, and is not to be ta......
-
Hervieu v. J.S. Ogilvie Pub. Co.
...construction given it by the Treasury Department. The case of Littleton v. Oliver Ditson Co. (decided by Judge Colt of the First Circuit) 62 F. 597, and his affirmed by the Court of Appeals (67 F. 905, 15 C.C.A. 61), involves the very question presented here, except in that case it was a mu......
-
M. Witmark & Sons v. Standard Music Roll Co.
... ... has been construed to be a literary composition ... Littleton et al. v. Oliver Ditson Company (C.C.) 62 ... F. 597; Hervieu v. J.S. Ogilvie Pub. Co. (C.C.) 169 ... ...
-
Werckmeister v. Pierce & Bushnell Mfg. Co.
...they are limited to the cases of 'book, chromo, lithograph, or photograph.' Littleton v. Oliver Ditson Co. (decided by this court August 1, 1894) 62 F. 597. They not assume to reach any reproduction which does not involve depositing with the librarian of congress two copies; and the case at......