Merrell v. Tice
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 854,104 U.S. 557 |
| Parties | MERRELL v. TICE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Melvin L. Gray for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. C. P. Culver, contra.
This was an action at law to recover damages for the infrine ment of a copyright. Tice, the plaintiff below, is the author of an almanac known as 'Professor Tice's Almanac.' The copyright alleged to be infringed was that of the almanac for 1877. The declaration contained the proper averments, and the answer a general denial. On the trial the plaintiff produced a copy of his almanac, having on its titlepage the words required by the act, 'Entered according to act of Congress,' &c. and then, to show that he had complied with the law of copyright, produced a certificate of the Librarian of Congress, under his seal of office, in the words following:——
'{LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.}
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE, WASHINGTON.
No. 12,579 G.
'To wit: Be it remembered that on the 13th day of November, anno Domini 1876, John H. Tice, of St. Louis, Mo., has deposited in this office the title of a book, the title or description of which is in the following words, to wit:——
'Professor Tice's Almanac for the year 1877, &c.
'The right whereof he claims as proprietor in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting copyrights.
Librarian of Congress.
'I, A. R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original record of copyright in the Library of Congress.
'In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of my office, this 11th day of May, 1878.
'A. R. SPOFFORD,
'Librarian of Congress.
'Two copies of the above publication deposited December 6, 1876.'
To the introduction of that portion of said paper in the words 'two copies of the above publication deposited December 6, 1876,' the defendant objected, on the ground that it was no part of the certificate, but a mere anonymous statement, when and by whom made not appearing, and incompetent; which objection the court overruled, and permitted the statement to go to the jury; to which ruling the defendant excepted. No other evidence was given to show that any copy or copies of the book had been deposited with the Librarian or in the mail. The infringement was proved to the satisfaction of the jury, who, under the charge of the court, rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. Other exceptions to evidence appear in the bill of exceptions, but it is unnecessary to consider them. The questions to which we have given attention, and which are decisive of the case, are:——
First, Whether the plaintiff was bound to prove that two copies of the book had been deposited with the Librarian or in a post-office, according to the requirements of the law?
Secondly, if he was, whether the proof adduced was competent for that purpose?
These questions will be considered together.
The acts of Congress relating to the subject are found in sects. 4956 to 4961 of the Revised Statutes.
Sect. 4956 declares that no person shall be entitled to a copyright unless he shall, before publication, deliver at the office of the Librarian of Congress, or deposit in the mail, addressed to the Librarian at Washington, a printed copy of the title of the book or other article, &c. nor unless he shall also, within ten days from the publication thereof, deliver at the office of the Librarian, or deposit in the mail addressed to him, at Washington, two copies of such copyright book or other article, &c.
Sect. 4957 requires the Librarian to record the name of the book or other article in a book to be kept for that purpose, in the words following: The Librarian is required to give a copy of the title or description, under the seal of the Librarian of Congress, to the proprietor whenever he shall require it.
Sect. 4958 prescribes the Librarian's fees: 'First, for recording the title or description of any copyright book or other article, fifty cents; second, for every copy under seal of such record actually given to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skidmore v. Zeppelin
...of the deposit was to permit inspection by other authors "to ascertain precisely what was the subject of copyright." Merrell v. Tice , 104 U.S. 557, 561, 26 L.Ed. 854 (1881). At the time that Taurus was registered, the Copyright Office's practice regarding applications to register unpublish......
-
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin
...which is problematic for the reasons discussed above. See, e.g. , White-Smith , 209 U.S. at 15–16, 28 S.Ct. 319 ; Merrell v. Tice , 104 U.S. 557, 558, 26 L.Ed. 854 (1881). More persuasive are the cases that, in the context of discussing the current copyright scheme, opined that one of the p......
-
National Conference of Bar Examiners v. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc.
...to shore up its argument that complete disclosure is required for copyright registration by pointing to dictum in Merrell v. Tice, 104 U.S. 557, 26 L.Ed. 854 (1882), a case decided under the Copyright Act of 1867, wherein the Supreme Court stated:... the copyright books deposited with [the ......
-
Parker v. Hinton
... ... Therefore, protected ... elements of a plaintiff's copyright must appear in the ... work's deposit copy. See Merrell v. Tice, 104 ... U.S. 557, 561 (1881) (explaining that deposit copies are ... necessary "to enable other authors to inspect them in ... ...
-
THE FOLKLORE OF COPYRIGHT PROCEDURE.
...notes 83-90. (13.) See infra text accompanying notes 83-90. (14.) See infra text accompanying note 88 (discussing Merrell v. Tice, 104 U.S. 557 (15.) See infra text accompanying note 197. (16.) See infra Section IV.B. (17.) See infra Part IV. (18.) See infra Section V.C. (19.) See infra tex......