TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co.

WHITE-SMITH MUSIC PUB. CO. v. APOLLO CO. (two cases)

White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 147 F. 226 (2d Cir. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 25, 1906
Docket
Nos. 216, 221
Citations
147 F. 22677 C.C.A. 3681906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231
Headnotes
1. Copyright — Construction of Statute. The law of copyright, being statutory and conferring distinct and limited rights not existing at common law, must be strictly construed, and cannot be extended, either by resort to equitable considerations or to a strained interpretation of the terms of the statute. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 11, Cent. Dig. Copyrights, § 1.] 2. Same — Infringement—Musical Composition. A copyright of a musical composition printed with staff notation is not infringed by a perforated record or sheet designed for use with mechanism to play the composition on a musical instrument; not being a “copy” of the copyrighted publication within the meaning of the copyright statute. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 11, Cent. Dig. Copyrights, §63.]
Summary
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. These causes come here upon appeal from a decree of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing bill alleging infringement of copyright. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court below. 139 Fed. 437.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised in these cases are of vast importance and involve far-reaching results. They have been exhaustively discussed in the clear and forcible briefs and arguments of *227 counsel. We are of the opinion that the rights sought to be protected by these suits belong to the same class as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes, and that the reasons which led to the passage of said statutes apply witli great force to the protection of rights of copyright against such an appropriation of the fruits of an author’s conception as results from the acts of defendant. But in view of the fact that the law of copyright is a creature of statute, and is not declaratory of the common law, and that it confers distinct and limited rights, which did not exist at the common law, we arc constrained to hold that it must be strictly construed, and that we are not at liberty to extend its provisions, either by resort to equitable considerations or to a strained interpretation of the terms of the statute.

We are therefore of the opinion that a perforated paper roll, such as is manufactured by defendant, is not a copy of complainant’s staff notation, for the following reasons: It is not a copy in fact. It is not designed to be read or actually used in reading music as the original stall notation is; and the claim that it may be read, which is practically disproved by the great preponderance of evidence, even if true, would establish merely a theory or possibility of use, as distinguished from an actual use. The argument that, because the roll is a notation or record of the music, it is therefore a copy, would apply to the disc of the phonograph or the barrel of the organ, which, it must be admitted, are not copies of the sheet music. The perforations in the rolls are not a varied form of symbols substituted for the symbols used by the author. They are mere adjuncts of a valve mechanism in a machine. In fact, the machine or musical playing device is the thing which appropriates the author’s property and publishes it by producing the musical sounds, thus conveying the author’s conception to the public.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1907: 11932: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co.157 F. 186 (7th Cir. 1907)
  2. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp. v. Bijou Theatre Co.59 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp. v. Bijou Theatre Co.59 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1932)
  2. Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co.157 F. 186 (7th Cir. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list