Williams v. Smythe
| Decision Date | 25 September 1901 |
| Docket Number | 4. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. SMYTHE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
H. M Hannah and H. C. Reynolds, for plaintiff.
C. H Soper, for defendants.
The affidavits showed that the plaintiff, Catharine A. Williams was the owner of a copyrighted directory of the city of Scranton for the year 1900, and that the defendant W. L Smythe had compiled, and was about to issue, a directory of the same for the year 1901. The bill charged that the one had in large part been pirated from the other, in violation of the copyright, and prayed that its publication be enjoined.
In the compilation of his directory the defendant has unquestionably done considerable independent work, as an examination of the book abundantly shows. Not one of the 441 pages which contain the alphabetic list of residents of the city, and make up the largest and most important part of the directory, but shows a material difference from the corresponding page of that of the plaintiff. Names are added and omitted, and corrections made, some of which, to my own knowledge, are mistakes, but all of which go to establish to my satisfaction that as to this part of the publication the defendant has practically compiled it, as he declares, from original sources, and that so far the charge of piracy is not made out. It is true that in the affidavits in support of the motion the plaintiff has pointed out a few errors which have been evidently carried forward from the one directory to the other, and in general terms alleges, but fails to specify, a number more. But I am not prepared to have this overcome the manifest proof of independent work to which I have alluded, sustained, as it is by the evidence produced by the defendant of the means employed to gather the information on which this part of his directory is based.
Unfortunately however, the same cannot be said as to other parts of it. In what is known as the 'Business Directory,' pages 442 to 448, inclusive, while not a little new material has been introduced, yet so many glaring mistakes which appear in the plaintiff's directory are found in exactly the same shape and connection in that of the defendant, I am forced to the conclusion that much of the one has been appropriated and incorporated bodily into the other, in violation of the copyright by which it is protected. A few examples will suffice. Thus under the head of 'Lawyers,' 'Clark W. Bliss' is given in both as 'Charles W. Bliss'; R. Louis Grambs' as 'P. Louis Grambo'; 'M. F. Sando' as 'M. F.Sands'; 'John F. Murphy' as 'John T. Murphy.' Under the head of 'Physicians,' 'Daniel H. Jenkins' appears as 'David H. Jenkins.' Under 'Meat Markets,' 'Frank M. Aylesworth, 223 Wyoming avenue,' is given, when the fact is that he has long since gone out of that business; and under the head of 'Insurance Agents' we find 'william Hodby, 807 Mears Bldg.,' although he has not been at that office since February last, and is said to have removed from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co.
... ... List Pub. Co. v. Keller (C.C.) 30 F. 774; ... Hartford Printing Co. v. Hartford Directory & Pub. Co ... (C.C.) 146 F. 332; Williams v. Smythe (C.C.) ... 110 F. 961. And the courts have held in each instance that an ... unfair saving of labor and expense, by appropriating the ... ...
-
Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 188.
... ... 279. It is equally well-established ... law in this country. Trow Directory Printing & ... Book-Binding Co. v. Boyd (C.c.) 97 F. 586; Williams ... v. Smythe (C.C.) 110 F. 961; Trow Directory Co. v ... United States Directory Co. (C.C.) 122 F. 191; ... Sampson & Murdock Co. v ... ...
-
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation
...Co. v. Keystone Co., 281 F. 83, 92, 26 A.L.R. 571 (C. C.A.2); General Drafting Co. v. Andrews, 37 F.(2d) 54, 56 (C.C.A.2); Williams v. Smythe (C.C.) 110 F. 961; American, etc., Directory Co. v. Gehring Pub. Co. (D.C.) 4 F.(2d) 415; New Jersey, etc., Co. v. Barton Business Service (D.C.) 57 ......
-
No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. v. Norris
...It certainly displays as much originality as a city directory, which frequently has been held entitled to copyright. Williams v. Smythe (C.C.) 110 F. 961; Directory Co. v. U.S. Directory Co. (C.C.) 122 F. 191. Moreover, the information thus made public was obtained only by considerable effo......