Osgood v. A.S. Aloe Instrument Co.
| Citation | 83 F. 470 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1897 |
| Docket Number | 3,839. |
| Parties | OSGOOD v. A. S. ALOE INSTRUMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Paul Bakewell, for complainant.
M. B Jonas and A. C. Fowler, for defendant.
This is a suit for relief against an alleged infringement of a copyright. Complainant avers that she was, in 1891, the author of a book entitled 'How to Apply Matt, Bronze, La Croix, and Dresden Colors to China;' that, in order to secure copyright thereof, she fully conformed to the requirements of the act of congress approved March 3, 1891 and in so doing deposited a printed copy of the title of said book, and also two copies of the book itself, not later than the day of its publication, with the librarian of congress. She further avers that she gave due notice of her copyright by inserting in the several copies of said book, on the page immediately following the title page, the words as follows ' The bill further avers that the defendant, in a catalogue or price list published by it, infringed her copyright, by pirating and embodying therein substantial and material parts of her book. The defendant denies that complainant had any legal copyright in or to said book; avers that the complainant did not, later than the day of publication, deliver at the office of the librarian of congress at Washington, District of Columbia, or deposit in the mail within the United States, addressed to the librarian of congress at Washington, District of Columbia, two copies of her said book; and further avers that she did not give due notice thereof as required by law; and denies that it has in any manner made unfair or unlawful use of any of the contents thereof. On the issues so made the cause is submitted for judgment on the proof.
The act of March 3, 1891, above referred to, gives to every author, designer, or proprietor of any book the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, and vending the same, upon complying with the provisions of the act, which require that the author shall do two things: First, deliver at the office of the librarian of congress, or deposit in the mail within the United States, addressed to the librarian of congress at Washington, District of Columbia, a printed copy of the title of the book; second, deliver, not later than the day of publication of the book, at the office of the librarian of congress at Washington, District of Columbia, or deposit in the mail within the United States, addressed to the librarian of congress at Washington, District of Columbia, two copies of such copyright book. And by the provisions of section 4962, Rev. St., such author can maintain no action for the infringement of his copyright unless he shall give notice thereof by inserting in the several copies of every edition published, on the title page, or on the page immediately following, if it be a book, the following words, viz.: 'Entered according to the act of congress in the year . . ., by A.B. in the office of the librarian of congress at Washington,' or, at the option of the author, the word 'Copyright,' together with the year the copyright was entered, and the name of the party by whom it was taken out, thus: 'Copyright, 18--, by A.B.' By the provisions of this act an author may secure a copyright entitling him to an exclusive monopoly, for the period of 28 years, to the sale of his own productions, provided he conforms to the requirements of the act already particularized. These requirements are in the nature of conditions precedent to the right, and must be strictly complied with. Unlike the laws governing the issue of patents to inventors, no certificate is made by the government conferring a copyright upon authors. They therefore have no grant conferring upon them, in terms, a monopoly in or to their productions, and therefore have nothing to show a prima facie case, like that which arises in a suit for the infringement of letters patent, upon the production of the patent itself. Authors take their rights under and subject to the law, and, when assailed, the burden is upon them to show literal compliance with each and every statutory requirement in the nature of conditions precedent. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Merrell v. Tice, 104 U.S. 557; Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U.S. 123, 9 Sup.Ct. 710.
I shall first consider the issue presented as to whether the complainant, prior to the date of publication of her work delivered to the librarian of congress two copies of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huebsch v. Arthur H. Crist Co.
...on the plaintiff to show compliance with statutory requirements as conditions precedent.' The court cited Merrell v. Tice, and Osgood v. Aloe Co., supra, as In Belford v. Scribner, 144 U.S. 488, 505, 506, 12 Sup.Ct. 734, 739 (36 L.Ed. 514), the court said: 'It is also contended that the cop......
-
Louis Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co.
... ... if it possess artistic merit and be suitable, also, for use ... as a design, may, at the owner's election, be protected ... either by ... Co. v ... Werckmeister, 72 F. 54, 18 C.C.A. 431; Osgood v. A ... S. Aloe Instrument Co. (C.C.) 83 F. 470; Freeman v ... Trade ... ...
-
Mifflin v. Dutton
...U.S. 123, 149, 150, 9 Sup.Ct. 710, 33 L.Ed. 76; Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 55, 4 Sup.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349; Osgood v. Instrument Co. (C.C.) 83 F. 470; (C.C.) 69 F. 291; Hoertel v. Tuck Sons Co. (C.C.) 94 F. 844; Higgins v. Keuffel (C.C.) 30 F. 627; Id., 140 U.S. 428, 11 Sup.Ct......
-
Freeman v. The Trade Register, Inc.
... ... January, 1905, as a supplement to the regular January issue ... of the Pacific Fisherman ... 10,762; Pierce Co. v. Werckmeister, 72 F ... 54, 18 C.C.A. 431; Osgood v. A.S. Aloe Co. (C.C.) 83 ... Defendant ... urges that there ... ...