Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation

Decision Date10 November 1930
Docket NumberNo. 4.,4.
PartiesNICHOLS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

O'Brien, Malevinsky & Driscoll, of New York City (Isaac R. Oeland and M. L. Malevinsky, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Siegfried F. Hartman, of New York City (Nathan L. Miller and Siegfried F. Hartman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff is the author of a play, "Abie's Irish Rose," which it may be assumed was properly copyrighted under section five, subdivision (d), of the Copyright Act, 17 USCA § 5(d). The defendant produced publicly a motion picture play, "The Cohens and The Kellys," which the plaintiff alleges was taken from it. As we think the defendant's play too unlike the plaintiff's to be an infringement, we may assume, arguendo, that in some details the defendant used the plaintiff's play, as will subsequently appear, though we do not so decide. It therefore becomes necessary to give an outline of the two plays.

"Abie's Irish Rose" presents a Jewish family living in prosperous circumstances in New York. The father, a widower, is in business as a merchant, in which his son and only child helps him. The boy has philandered with young women, who to his father's great disgust have always been Gentiles, for he is obsessed with a passion that his daughter-in-law shall be an orthodox Jewess. When the play opens the son, who has been courting a young Irish Catholic girl, has already married her secretly before a Protestant minister, and is concerned to soften the blow for his father, by securing a favorable impression of his bride, while concealing her faith and race. To accomplish this he introduces her to his father at his home as a Jewess, and lets it appear that he is interested in her, though he conceals the marriage. The girl somewhat reluctantly falls in with the plan; the father takes the bait, becomes infatuated with the girl, concludes that they must marry, and assumes that of course they will, if he so decides. He calls in a rabbi, and prepares for the wedding according to the Jewish rite.

Meanwhile the girl's father, also a widower, who lives in California, and is as intense in his own religious antagonism as the Jew, has been called to New York, supposing that his daughter is to marry an Irishman and a Catholic. Accompanied by a priest, he arrives at the house at the moment when the marriage is being celebrated, but too late to prevent it, and the two fathers, each infuriated by the proposed union of his child to a heretic, fall into unseemly and grotesque antics. The priest and the rabbi become friendly, exchange trite sentiments about religion, and agree that the match is good. Apparently out of abundant caution, the priest celebrates the marriage for a third time, while the girl's father is inveigled away. The second act closes with each father, still outraged, seeking to find some way by which the union, thus trebly insured, may be dissolved.

The last act takes place about a year later, the young couple having meanwhile been abjured by each father, and left to their own resources. They have had twins, a boy and a girl, but their fathers know no more than that a child has been born. At Christmas each, led by his craving to see his grandchild, goes separately to the young folks' home, where they encounter each other, each laden with gifts, one for a boy, the other for a girl. After some slapstick comedy, depending upon the insistence of each that he is right about the sex of the grandchild, they become reconciled when they learn the truth, and that each child is to bear the given name of a grandparent. The curtain falls as the fathers are exchanging amenities, and the Jew giving evidence of an abatement in the strictness of his orthodoxy.

"The Cohens and The Kellys" presents two families, Jewish and Irish, living side by side in the poorer quarters of New York in a state of perpetual enmity. The wives in both cases are still living, and share in the mutual animosity, as do two small sons, and even the respective dogs. The Jews have a daughter, the Irish a son; the Jewish father is in the clothing business; the Irishman is a policeman. The children are in love with each other, and secretly marry, apparently after the play opens. The Jew, being in great financial straits, learns from a lawyer that he has fallen heir to a large fortune from a great-aunt, and moves into a great house, fitted luxuriously. Here he and his family live in vulgar ostentation, and here the Irish boy seeks out his Jewish bride, and is chased away by the angry father. The Jew then abuses the Irishman over the telephone, and both become hysterically excited. The extremity of his feelings makes the Jew sick, so that he must go to Florida for a rest, just before which the daughter discloses her marriage to her mother.

On his return the Jew finds that his daughter has borne a child; at first he suspects the lawyer, but eventually learns the truth and is overcome with anger at such a low alliance. Meanwhile, the Irish family who have been forbidden to see the grandchild, go to the Jew's house, and after a violent scene between the two fathers in which the Jew disowns his daughter, who decides to go back with her husband, the Irishman takes her back with her baby to his own poor lodgings. The lawyer, who had hoped to marry the Jew's daughter, seeing his plan foiled, tells the Jew that his fortune really belongs to the Irishman, who was also related to the dead woman, but offers to conceal his knowledge, if the Jew will share the loot. This the Jew repudiates, and, leaving the astonished lawyer, walks through the rain to his enemy's house to surrender the property. He arrives in great dejection, tells the truth, and abjectly turns to leave. A reconciliation ensues, the Irishman agreeing to share with him equally. The Jew shows some interest in his grandchild, though this is at most a minor motive in the reconciliation, and the curtain falls while the two are in their cups, the Jew insisting that in the firm name for the business, which they are to carry on jointly, his name shall stand first.

It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common-law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations. That has never been the law, but, as soon as literal appropriation ceases to be the test, the whole matter is necessarily at large, so that, as was recently well said by a distinguished judge, the decisions cannot help much in a new case. Fendler v. Morosco, 253 N. Y. 281, 292, 171 N. E. 56. When plays are concerned, the plagiarist may excise a separate scene Daly v. Webster, 56 F. 483 (C. C. A. 2); Chappell v. Fields, 210 F. 864 (C. C. A. 2); Chatterton v. Cave, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 483; or he may appropriate part of the dialogue (Warne v. Seebohm, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 73). Then the question is whether the part so taken is "substantial," and therefore not a "fair use" of the copyrighted work; it is the same question as arises in the case of any other copyrighted work. Marks v. Feist, 290 F. 959 (C. C. A. 2); Emerson v. Davies, Fed. Cas. No. 4436, 3 Story, 768, 795-797. But when the plagiarist does not take out a block in situ, but an abstract of the whole, decision is more troublesome. Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his "ideas," to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 82, 86, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Ed. 904; Guthrie v. Curlett, 36 F.(2d) 694 (C. C. A. 2). Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can. In some cases the question has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
311 cases
  • Golding v. R.K.O. Pictures
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 1950
    ...9 Cir., 65 F.2d 1, 24; Lewys v. O'Neill, D.C., 49 F.2d 603, 607, Dymow v. Bolton, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 690, 692; Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 119, 121, 122; Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 1013, 1016; Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 612, ......
  • Twentieth Century Fox Film v. Marvel Enterprises
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 9 Agosto 2001
    ...the more likely that the elements extracted from a work will consist of protectible expression. See Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930) (Hand, J.) ("[U]pon any work a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more o......
  • Davis v. DuPont de Nemours & Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 16 Abril 1965
    ...Loew's, Inc., 208 F.2d 185, 188 (8th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 843, 75 S.Ct. 64, 99 L.Ed. 664 (1954); Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902, 51 S.Ct. 216, 75 L. Ed. 795 (1931). 52 The presence of original elements in the in......
  • Arnstein v. Porter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 11 Febrero 1946
    ...and 28 as to performance for "profit." 21 See Arnstein v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 410, 411-412; Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 2 Cir., 45 F. 2d 119, 123; Dymow v. Bolton, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 690, 692; Gorham Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511, 528, 20 L.Ed. 731; Harold Lloyd Co. v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 books & journal articles
  • COPYRIGHT AS LEGAL PROCESS: THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LAW.
    • United States
    • 1 Abril 2020
    ...114 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1940); Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936); Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930); Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 35 F.2d 279 (1929). (226) See, e.g., G. Ricordi, 194 F.2d at 915 (exploring how the nature of ty......
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...The Final Frontier: Right of Publicity in Fictional Characters , 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 635 (2001). 45. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). 46. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 1954). 47. 802 F.3d at 1017.......
  • Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...The Final Frontier: Right of Publicity in Fictional Characters , 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 635 (2001). 45. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). 46. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 1954). 47. 802 F.3d at 1017.......
  • Avoid On-Sale Bar by Filing Early Both in the United States and China Post-Helsinn
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...The Final Frontier: Right of Publicity in Fictional Characters , 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 635 (2001). 45. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). 46. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 216 F.2d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 1954). 47. 802 F.3d at 1017.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT