Strauss v. Penn Printing & Publishing Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1283. |
| Citation | 220 F. 977 |
| Parties | STRAUSS v. PENN PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Alison M. Lederer, of New York City, and Arthur S. Minster, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Weaver & Drake, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The complainant is the owner of a duly registered copyright granted to him October 2, 1911, for a picture or drawing conceived and executed by him, which copyright entitled him to the sole right to print, reprint, publish, copy reproduce, and vend the said picture or drawing. The complainant granted a license to Gimbel Bros., merchants of the city of New York and Philadelphia, to reproduce and publish copies of the picture, under its name 'La Promenade des Toilettes at Gimbel Bros.,' for the purpose of illustrating advertisements of their wares. In pursuance of that license, the picture, representing a woman in artistic pose and costume, was reproduced in the Press, a newspaper of Philadelphia, on October 4, 1911, as an advertisement of Gimbel Bros. in connection with 'La Promenade des Toilettes.'
The defendant, a corporation engaged in printing posters, copied the picture from a copy of the Press of October 4, 1911 caused a cut to be made therefrom much enlarged in size, and made therefrom 2,500 posters. It sold 2,250 copies, and at the time of the hearing had in its possession, unsold, 250 copies. There was offered in evidence by the complainant from the bound files of the Press a copy of the Press of October 4, 1911, containing the picture with Gimbel's advertisement. There was also offered by the defendant a page of the Press of October 4, 1911, containing the picture and advertisement, which, as appears from the testimony, was similar to the copy from which the cut was made from which the posters were manufactured.
The defendant admits that the posters manufactured by it including those sold, are copies of the Press' reproduction of the complainant's copyrighted work, but denies that upon every copy of the picture or drawing published or caused to be published by Gimbel Bros. there was inscribed or printed as prescribed by law the letter 'C' inclosed within a circle, with the complainant's name thus, ' . . . Malcolm Strauss,' as claimed by the complainant. The defendant denies that there appeared on the copies whereof it has or had knowledge any notice of the copyright of the picture, and avers that there was an omission of the requisite notice, and that it was misled by the omission into believing that the picture was by the publication in the Press dedicated to the public.
An examination of the pictures printed in the Press, in evidence, is sufficient to show that the notice of copyright prescribed by the act was omitted from those reproductions. The name 'Malcolm Strauss' appears below the figure of the woman, and immediately below the initial 'S' of the name 'Strauss' appears a small blurred print mark, the outline of which is roughly semicircular in shape with the arc uppermost. Within the semicircular outline is an indistinct and blurred impression, which, upon close scrutiny by one searching for notice or having actual notice of the copyright, bears some resemblance to the extreme upper part of the letter 'C.' To one not searching for notice and having no actual notice of the copyright, the mark would appear merely as an irregular and indistinct blur upon the paper, such as frequently occurs accidentally in newspaper prints. Without notice these blurred and indistinct impressions would not convey to any one's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company
...particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright * * *." See Gerlach, supra, 23 F.2d at page 163; Strauss v. Penn Printing & Publishing Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1915, 220 F. 977. Cf. Kramer Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Capri Jewelry, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 143 F.Supp. 120, 122; Christie v......
-
Goldman-Morgen, Inc. v. Dan Brechner & Co., Inc.
...in passing, that an innocent infringement, no matter how innocent, will not prevent the awarding of profits. Strauss v. Penn Printing & Publishing Co., 220 F. 977 (E.D.Pa.1915). I, therefore, reject defendant's contention that an innocent infringement will prevent any recovery by V. LACK OF......
-
Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Dunston Lithograph Co.
... ... the productions in question were merely printing or labels ... In Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428, 11 Sup.Ct. 731, ... Alfred Decker Cohn Co. v ... Etchison Hat Co., 225 F. 135; Strauss v. Penn ... Printing & Publishing Co., 220 F. 977; Huebsch v ... Arthur ... ...
-
Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v. Charel Co.
...Smith v. Wilkinson, D.C.D.N.H.1937, 19 F.Supp. 841; Smith v. Bartlett, D.C.D.Me.1937, 18 F.Supp. 35, and Strauss v. Penn. Printing & Publishing Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 1915, 220 F. 977, in support of its contention that plaintiff's notice of copyright does not meet the requirements of Section 19 ......