Mail & Express Co. v. Life Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | 115. |
| Citation | 192 F. 899 |
| Parties | MAIL & EXPRESS CO. v. LIFE PUB. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles S. Mackenzie (J. Joseph Lilly, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Spencer Ordway & Wierum (O. C. Wierum, Jr., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The first contention of the defendant seems to be that the new copyright statute affords protection to proprietors of periodicals only in respect of such component parts thereof as were copyrightable by such proprietors. Stated more particularly the claim seems to be that when a periodical contains articles or pictures made by persons who have not transferred their rights to the publisher the copyright of the periodical does not cover them.
We have no reason to question the correctness of the defendant's contention. It is sufficient to say that the trial court ruled in accordance therewith and submitted the question involved to the jury. The verdict established that the artists sold their rights in these pictures to the plaintiff.
The next contention seems to be that the plaintiff's copyright of its periodical does not protect the pictures as 'component parts.' But section 3 of the copyright act says in so many words that a copyright does protect 'all copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted' and that in the case of a periodical the copyright 'gives the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this act. ' [1] The language of the statute is so exactly contrary to the defendant's claim that there seems to be no reason for interpretation nor ground for discussion.
The defendant further contends that the class of pictures in question here are of such a transitory nature that 'unless they are specially registered as provided for in the act they fall within the public domain as soon as they are published. ' We find nothing in this proof to show that these pictures are of an especially transitory nature and nothing in the law to substantiate the defendant's contention.
The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury that if they found for the plaintiff they must award at least $250 damages for each infringement. The relevant provisions of the section of the copyright act relating to damages are printed in the footnote [2] and the defendant urges that while the trial judge might have taken away the question of damages from the jury and himself have awarded the damages stated, he was not authorized to direct the jury to do so.
While the language of the provision quoted is somewhat obscure, we do not think that by the use of the word 'court' it is required that the judge acting by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnstein v. Porter
...Corp. v. Fisher, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 745, 747; Universal Pictures Corp. v. Marsh, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 241, 242; cf. Mail & Express Co. v. Life Pub. Co., 2 Cir., 192 F. 899, 900-901; Brady v. Daly, 175 U.S. 148, 151, 160-161, 20 S.Ct. 62, 44 L.Ed. 109; Turner & Dahnken v. Crowley, 9 Cir., 252 F. 7......
-
Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc.
...Magazine in 1932, Liberty's copyright upon the entire issues of the magazine does not cover the cartoons. Mail & Express Co. v. Life Pub. Co., 192 F. 899, 900 (2nd Cir. 1912); Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc., 278 F.Supp. 122, 125 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (novel published in magazine pursuan......
-
Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd.
...e.g., Chappell & Co. v. Palermo Cafe, 249 F.2d 77 (1st Cir.1957) (no right to a jury trial under 1909 Act); Mail & Express Co. v. Life Publishing Co., 192 F. 899 (2d Cir.1912) (right to a jury trial under 1909 Act); Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam) (no right to a ju......
-
Raydiola Music v. Revelation Rob, Inc.
...(under 1976 Act, statutory damages are equitable in nature so that there is no right to a jury trial), with Mail & Express Co. v. Life Pub. Co., 192 F. 899 (2d Cir.1912) (jury trial available under 1909 statute)12and Chappell and Co. v. Cavalier Cafe, 13 F.R.D. 321 (D.Mass.1952) (same).13 G......