Woodman v. Lydiard-Peterson Co.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1912
• Citation: 192 F. 67
• Parties: WOODMAN v. LYDIARD-PETERSON CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

192 F. 67

WOODMAN v. LYDIARD-PETERSON CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

January 17, 1912

Charles J. Traxler, for complainant.

Milton D. Purdy, for defendant.

WILLARD District Judge.

While it is not admitted in the answer that the defendant copied the map of the complainant, yet the evidence in the case shows that that was done, and I understand that no contention to the contrary is now made by counsel for defendant. So we start with the fact found that, the complainant having a copyrighted map or publication, the defendant has made copies of it and used them. The question is whether, under these circumstances, the bill can be maintained.

There is first the preliminary question raised by the defendant to the effect that no notice was given of the copyright, as required by law. The thing copyrighted was Woodman's Minnetonka Map-Directory, and the thing copyrighted is described in a letter from the librarian of Congress acknowledging the receipt of the title page.

That the book contains a proper notice of the copyright is admitted; but the question is whether the map is covered by the copyright notice found in the book. It is to be noticed in the first place, that the title of this publication is 'Map-Directory.' It is not a directory alone; it is a map-directory, indicating that the map is included in the directory and made a part of it. When the table of contents is examined, we find on the first line in that table the words 'Lake Minnetonka Map . . . Inside front cover ' The map is in a pocket in the first page of the book.

It has been held repeatedly that the copyright of a magazine copyrights every article in the magazine, that it is not necessary that the copyright notice should be repeated upon each article, but that one notice in the beginning of the magazine protects all the contents of the magazine. If it were necessary, I should be inclined to hold that this copyright notice in the book itself protects the map. But I am of the opinion that the notice on the map itself is sufficient. It contains the words, 'Copyright 1908.' To be sure, it does not say, by P. M. Woodman, nor does it say, copyrighted by Woodman; but nobody can have any doubt upon reading this language but that Woodman was the man who procured the copyright.

In the case of Osgood v. A. S. Aloe Instrument Co. (C.C.) 83 F. 470, there was no name whatever either after or before the word 'Copyright.' Here we do have 'Woodman's Minnetonka Map-Directory.' In that case there was no statement by whom it was published, as there is in this case. We also have the statement on the map that it was published by the Woodman Publishing Company, and we have on the title page the words 'Woodman's Minnetonka Map-Directory.' I do not see any reason for a very strict construction of the law. My recollection is that the strictness required by the former act has been materially modified by the present one. The object is to notify persons who is the owner of the publication, and the person by whom it is copyrighted, so that, if they make copies, they may know that they are infringing upon somebody's copyright. While it is probably material that some name be stated, yet I do not think that it is essential that the initials of the person copyrighting should be given. I therefore pass that contention by, holding that there was sufficient notice given of the copyright as required by law.

The other serious question is whether the defendant has taken any substantial part of the map of the complainant. That everything that there is in the map of the defendant is taken from the map of the complainant is admitted; but it is suggested that some things which were in the map of the complainant do not appear upon the map of the defendant. It is also suggested that there is nothing original in the map of the complainant; that he himself secured all his material not from original research, but from other publications. The fact that he did secure all this material from other publications which were not copyrighted does not, to my mind, prevent him from getting a copyright upon this map, if it constitutes a new arrangement of old material; and that this map does constitute a new arrangement of old material I think is apparent. It contains some parts of Carver county; it contains more than had appeared upon any one piece of paper or map of that character; it is a combination of the government and other maps. It is not true to say that it does not contain any original feature that had not appeared in any map prior to this time. It does contain quarter section lines. These, to be sure, are to some extent the same as those which had appeared in the Dahl Map; but that was accidental. They appeared in the Dahl Map because the boundaries of farms and tracts of land happened to coincide with the boundaries of the quarter sections. But an examination of the Dahl Map shows that, whenever the boundaries did not coincide with the quarter section line, then the quarter section lines were omitted. This is an original feature which the defendant availed himself of when he copied the map.

The complainant in his testimony specified some 38 features which he says were original in his map and did not appear in any other map unless it was in the government map. It was suggested by counsel, as I understood him, that the complainant had a right to copyright features which appeared upon the government map and did not appear upon any other map. I do not understand upon what basis that contention was made. I find nothing in the law to sustain it. On the contrary, it appears from section 7 o...