# Copyright, Its History and Its Law/Chapter 14

XIV
Infringement of Copyright: Piracy, "Fair Use" and "Unfair Competition"
PiracyThe word "piracy," since that gentle craft has disappeared from the high seas, has come commonly into use to mean free-booting with reference to literary property. In this sense it is used as early as 1771 by Luckombe in his history of printing, in which he says: "They . . . would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition." It was especially applied in America more or less jocularly in the days when there was no legal protection for works by English authors, to the reprinting chiefly of English novels without authority from or payment to their authors, when publishers whose imprints were chiefly on such reprints were commonly known as pirates. This secondary meaning has been accepted by the dictionary makers, and the use by English law authorities, and now in the new American code, of the phrases "pirated works" and "piratical copies," gives the word specific legal status. It is the comprehensive term now in common and legal use to mean the stealing of an author's work by reprinting it in full or in substantial part without the authority of the copyright proprietor, and is in fact an infringement at wholesale or otherwise of the author's exclusive right. This is of course prohibited by the law to the full extent of its jurisdiction and is punishable as prescribed in the law.
Test of piracy"The true test of piracy," said Judge Shipman in the U. S. Circuit Court in 1875, in Banks v. McDivitt, is "whether the defendant has in fact used the plan, ​arrangements and illustrations as the model of his own book, with colorable alterations and variations, or whether his work is the result of his own labor, skill and use of common materials and common sources." Judge Story said in 1841, in Folsom v. Marsh: "If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labours of the original author are substantially, to an injurious extent, appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a piracy pro tanto. The entirety of the copyright is the property of the author and it is no defence that another person has appropriated a part and not the whole of any property."
Infringement in specific meaningInfringement is commonly taken to mean specific invasion of the author's rights rather than wholesale piracy; and the question of what is infringement or "literary larceny" is more often a question of the interpretation of the facts than the construction of the statute. The legal cases arising under infringement constitute a very large proportion of copyright litigation, demanding as they do judicial determination as to the acts complained of in each particular case. It is therefore impossible in this volume to give citations or references for the hundreds of cases recorded in the law reports or in the various works on copyright, but it may be noted that the foot-note citations in MacGillivray's "Law of copyright" cover a very large number of American as well as English cases. No treatise on copyright can apply, however, in advance, the general principles of copyright to the infinite variety of possible cases; and only generalizations and a few illustrative cases can here be given.
Infringement is a question of fact rather than of intent. It is not a valid defense that the infringer is ignorant; nor, on the other hand, can any one be held for intention to infringe, where the act of infringe​ment has not been accomplished.Questions of fact and intent The new American code, nevertheless, recognizes knowledge and intent in certain cases of punishment or damages by the use of the words "willfully" and "knowingly." The letter of the law is in general that the infringer must be held responsible and must make good any damages suffered by the copyright proprietor, but proof that he had no guilty knowledge or intent may effect mitigation of punitive damages. The trend of court decisions and of judicial opinion does not seem to be evident and consistent in this development; but it may perhaps be said that while copyright law is more closely applied from the letter of the statutes, in the legal aspect, the principles of equity have been given freer play where the statute is not specific and definite. In 1899, in Green v. Irish Independent, the English Court of Appeal held that the proprietors of a newspaper who had printed an advertisement containing an illustration which the advertiser had license to use only for specified purposes, were liable for penalties, though they did not know that the illustration was copyrighted; and in 1902, in American Press Assoc, v. Daily Story Pub. Co., the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals held the defendants liable, though they had innocently copied from a newspaper reprint which had inadvertently omitted the copyright notice. But in 1898 Justice Mathew, in Bolton v. London Exhibitions, declined to hold the defendants punishable, because they did not know that the lithographer from whom they had ordered a poster had infringed the copyright of a photograph.
"Fair use""Fair use" means quotation from or other use of an author's work within the evident meaning or judicial construction of the copyright statute, and is the usual answer of the defendant to a complaint that he has taken without authority some portion of the author's ​work or utilized in some way the result of the author's labors. The borderland between infringement and "fair use" is peculiarly and necessarily one of uncertainty, not so much because of ambiguity in the statute as of difficulty in determining the extent of use within which it is said non curat lex. No statute can be so clear or so complete as to obviate questions of this kind. In general there must be copying of a material or substantial part. What is a material or substantial part, constituting infringement, is a difficult question of fact.
Principle of infringement"Copying is not confined to literal repetition," said Judge Clifford, in Lawrence v. Dana, in the U. S. Circuit Court in 1869, "but includes also the various modes in which the matter of any publication may be adopted, imitated, or transferred, with more or less colorable alterations to disguise the source from which the material was derived; nor is it necessary that the whole, or even the larger portion of the work, should be taken in order to constitute an invasion of copyright." The Chancery Division, through Lord Chief Justice Alverstone, took the extreme course in Trengrouse v. "Sol" Syndicate, in 1901, of holding a work an infringement, though less than a page was taken from the plaintiff's football guide.
Infringement by indirect copyingInfringement may be by indirect as well as by direct copying. In the case of Cate v. Devon in 1889, in the Chancery Court, the defense that the copying was not from the original copyright work but from a newspaper reprint, was rejected. Infringement may be through quite a different medium from the original; thus a shorthand reproduction of a lecture on "The dog as the friend of man," published in a text-book of shorthand, was held in the Chancery case of Nichols v. Pitman, in 1884, to be an infringement of the lecture as much as if in ordinary type.
​Exceptions from infringement The doctrine of infringement cannot be invoked to obtain monopoly of any particular subject, and the authorized biographer of President Garfield was denied relief in 1889, in Gilmore v. Anderson, when he sought to prevent the publication of a life of Garfield by another writer. Nor will mere similarity of treatment of the same subject constitute infringement. A copyright owner cannot prevent another person from publishing the matter contained in his book, if invented or collected independently, or from making "fair use" of its contents. Two map-makers, collecting at first hand the same data, would naturally make the same map, and each would equally be entitled to copyright. In this respect, copyright law differs from patent law, where a first use bars others from the same field. It has even been held that the collected material might be used by a second compiler as a guide in a second compilation, if subjected to original verification, as in the case of a street directory. But in the case of rival Boston directories in 1905, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Sampson & Murdock Co. v. Seaver Radford Co., that a verification by actual canvass from a list of discrepancies made up from the earlier work was beyond fair use.
Infringement by abridgment and compilation Abridgments were construed by early English decisions not to be infringements, and this precedent was followed, reluctantly and often with protest, in later cases by English and American judges, as set forth in the chapter on subject-matter. Later copyright provisions,—as by use of the word "retranchements" in the Berne-Berlin conventions, and the specific authorization in the American code "to make any other version thereof," and for copyright of an abridgment of a work in the public domain,—directly or by implication, make abridgment an infringement and free the courts to take this view. ​Compilations also constitute infringement if they extract substantial parts of a copyright work, beyond the limits of "fair use," or even if they adopt the plan or arrangement or bodily transfer the material of a copyright compilation of non-copyright matter.
Abridged compilations A curious complaint of infringement by abridgment was made in Gabriel v. McCabe, in 1896, before Judge Grosscup in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois, where the plaintiff had licensed the use of a copyright song, "When the roll is called up yonder," in a collection of religious poetry, "The finest of the wheat, no. 2," published by the defendant, who included the song also in an abridged edition of this collection and in a combined edition of this and another collection. Judge Grosscup held that: "Future editions of a book may contain a composition published in an earlier edition by license, even though parts of the earlier edition are omitted. . . . To hold otherwise would practically forbid any new editions of books of compilations, for the consent of all the authors contributing could not, in many instances, be obtained." But if the collection had been so abridged as to result in the publication of the song alone as sheet music, it would have been an unfair use under the license.
Separation of infringing parts The general principles as to quotation beyond "fair use" were well laid down by Lord Chancellor Eldon, in the early English case of Mawman v. Tegg, in 1826: "If the parts which have been copied cannot be separated from those which are original, without destroying the use and value of the original matter, he who has made an improper use of that which did not belong to him must suffer the consequences of so doing. If a man mixes what belongs to him with what belongs to me, and the mixture be forbidden by law, he must again separate them, and he must bear all the mischief and loss which the separation may occasion. ​If an individual chooses in any work to mix my literary matter with his own, he must be restrained from publishing the literary matter which belongs to me; and if the parts of the work cannot be separated, and if by that means the injunction, which restrained the publication of my literary matter, prevents also the publication of his own literary matter, he has only himself to blame."
Law digests The difficult question of the extent to which a compiler may utilize the materials of another has come especially to the front in the American courts with reference to law digests and reports, within recent years. In 1896, in Mead v. West Pub. Co., concerning rival annotated editions of "Stephen on pleading," then out of copyright, where the defendant's editor admitted having clipped the text from the complainant's edition and having obtained some ideas or suggestions from it, Judge Lochren, in the U. S. Circuit Court in Minnesota, held that there was no infringement because non-copyright matter could not be protected in a copyright work from such clipping, because the defendant's notes were original even though suggested from the other, and because the few errors and citations in common were immaterial since there were many new citations and the work was on the whole the result of original research. That bodily transfer of citations is beyond "fair use" was emphasized by Judge Ray in White v. Bender, in 1911.
Proof from common errors As to proof from common errors, it had been held in 1895, in the case of Chicago Dollar Directory Co. v. Chicago Directory Co., that the later work, containing sixty-seven errors found in the other, was evidently an infringement of the earlier compilation. In Bisel v. Welsh, Re Brightly Pennsylvania reports, in 1904, the U. S. Circuit Court held that repetitions of errors in citations were evidence of infringement ​by the author of his own reports published under an earlier contract by the plaintiffs; and in 1911, in Shepard v. Taylor, Judge Hazel held that common errors were prima facie proof of infringement.
In the important case of West Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Pub. Co., where a collection of selected cases and a general digest were alleged to be infringements of the plaintiff's reports and monthly digests, Judge Coxe in the U. S. Circuit Court enjoined 303 proved "instances of piracy" but not the remaining portions of the digest, but in 1897 the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Lacombe, held that under such circumstances the burden of proof must be on the unfair user and broadened the decision by issuing an injunction against the work as a whole, excepting those parts which were public property.Infringement in part In 1910, in Park & Pollard v. Kellerstrass, Judge Philips enjoined the whole work because the infringing parts were not separable. In 1903, in Thompson Co. v. American Law Book Co., where the editor of the defendant's law encyclopaedia had made a list of cases cited in complainant's work, which included material "pirated" by the complainant from copyright works, the Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the lower court, held through Judge Coxe that there was no infringement, because the only use made of the list was to guide the defendant to the reports and because the complainant had no standing in equity.No infringement of piracies or frauds "If the defendant was guilty of piracy, so was the complainant; and equity will not protect a pirate from infringements of his piratical work." To like effect in Slinsgby v. Bradford Co., in 1905, Justice Warrington, in the Chancery Division, held that the plaintiff could not recover against an evident copying because his own catalogue was fraudulent in advertising as patented articles not so protected, and a fraud will not be protected. In ​the later case of West Pub. Co. v. Thompson Co., where the publishers of the original reports and digests sought to restrain the Thompson encyclopaedias, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that while a compiler may use a copyright digest by making lists from which to run down cases, which is "fair use," extensive copying or paraphrasing of the language of the digest, whether to save literary work or mechanical labor, constitutes an infringement. The case was sent back to the lower court for rehearing and assessment of damages and was settled in 1911 by an agreement involving transfer of the encyclopaedia to the plaintiff. Reference to a copyright work giving pagination is not an infringement, as was decided in 1909, in Banks Law Pub. Co. v. Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co., in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Quotation Whether simple quotation constitutes an infringement or is "fair use," depends upon extent and in some respects upon purpose. In 1892 Justice North, in the English Court of Chancery, in Walter v. Steinkopff, held that the use by the St. James Gazette of two fifths of an article by Kipling, copyrighted by the Times, was beyond "fair use" of quotations, notwithstanding the newspaper custom of copying from one another. On the other hand, quotations in a review of a book made to reasonable extent for the purposes of criticism, have usually been considered "fair use," provided they do not go to the extent of a description or abridgment which would be measurably a substitute for the book.
Private use The multiplication of copies by handwriting or other process for private use, as among the members of an orchestra or in a business office, has been held an infringement in English decisions, though prohibition of the making of a single copy for personal use would be an extreme application of this doctrine, ​and such use is specifically permitted in the new English code.
The doctrine of "unfair competition" Beyond the purview of copyright law, there is a means of legal remedy for the copyright proprietor which can be enforced by state as well as by federal courts, resting either upon statutes outside the copyright law, or on the general principles of equity. This is the application of the doctrine of "unfair competition" especially in cases involving "fraud" or fraudulent representation, direct or implied, leading the purchaser to buy something other than what he supposes he is buying. Thus if a publisher prints and binds a book with a title and in a style that leads a purchaser to suppose that it is another book which he is buying, the publisher of the other book has the right to obtain equitable relief by an injunction from the transgressor on the ground of unfair competition without any reference to copyright law, although this doctrine is more applied in the case of patents, trade-marks and copyrights than perhaps any other field.
The doctrine of deceptive intent There is also evident a growing tendency on the part of the courts to protect the public from possible deception especially if done with fraudulent intent, where some distinctive name or symbol or form associated with some line of product is used for another line of product of different origin and character, though there may be here no direct competition; but this comparatively new doctrine is more likely to be used in regard to trade-mark articles than in respect to literary and like property. It might, however, apply in a case where a well-known publishing house had published, for instance, a popular series of schoolbooks as Smith's Arithmetical Readers and another firm containing the same name had started to publish a Smith's Algebraic Readers—but the application would be extremely doubtful.
​The "Chatterbox" cases In the Chatterbox cases, 1884–1887, previously referred to, the final decision of Judge Shipman emphasized the view that the use of the title "Chatterbox" on a similar publication was misleading to the public, thus bringing both trade-mark law and common law protection to the rescue against unfair competition.
Encyclopaedia Britannica cases In the series of Encyclopaedia Britannica cases, 1890–1904, the English publishers Black or their American representatives Scribner sought to protect in this country the English edition, or an American authorized edition, under the copyright law previous to 1891, copyrighted articles by Americans being included, and under common law because of the alleged fraudulent misuse of the name to mislead the public. In 1893, in Black v. Allen, Judge Townsend held that the use of copyrighted material in a non-copyright work did not vitiate the copyright, that the American author was entitled to secure and protect copyright even though the right to use was assigned to an English house which could not directly secure copyright, and that the fact of discrepancy in the title of the copyrighted articles as registered for copyright on separate publication and deposit and in the cyclopaedia, did not endanger the copyright. In 1904, in Encyclopaedia Britannica Co. v. Tribune Association, Judge Lacombe in the U. S. Circuit Court enjoined condensations of the copyrighted American articles. But in Black v. Ehrich and other cases, the complainants were not successful in obtaining an injunction against the use of the title Encyclopaedia Britannica on reprints of non-copyright material which did not mislead the public.
Webster Dictionary cases In the Webster Dictionary cases in 1890–1909, a long litigation between the Merriams, as authorized publishers of Webster, and Ogilvie and other defendants, the courts held that the use of the name Webster ​or the title Webster's Dictionary could not be restrained when used in connection with a reprint of the original Webster Dictionary, then out of copyright, or otherwise in a manner not likely to mislead the public; but injunctions were granted and sustained against the use of these names on dictionaries issued in form so like the Merriam editions as to deceive the public, or in connection with misleading advertisements or circulars.
"Old sleuth" cases In 1888–1890 George Munro, publisher of the "Old sleuth" detective series, sought in actions against several defendants to protect the use of the name "Sleuth" and was upheld in the N. Y. Supreme Court in separate decisions by Judges Andrews, O'Brien, and Patterson, while in one of the cases Judge Ingraham held that "sleuth" was a dictionary word and could not be protected; in 1889 the N. Y. Court of Appeals through Chief Judge Parker decided that the name "Sleuth" was protectable, and in 1890 Judge Macomber of the N. Y. Supreme Court held that "Sleuth" was properly a subject of trade-mark. But in 1890 also, Judge Shipman in the U. S. District Court dismissed the complaint in another Munro case, as to an illustration picturing "Old Sleuth," on the ground that though of the same subject it was not of the same character. These cases illustrate the difficulty of decisions in this borderland of equity.
Other title decisions In 1894 Judge Green, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New Jersey, in Social Register Association v. Howard, protected on grounds of equity the title "Social register" as descriptive of a social directory covering Orange, N. J., and enjoined the use of "Howard's Social register" as unfair competition. In 1887 the Harper house, as publishers of the Franklin Square Library, obtained from the U. S. Circuit Court, through Judge Waite, an injunction against the ​Franklin Square Library Company for violation of their trade-mark rights in the name.
Rebound copies Where the American Book Co. brought suit against Doan & Hanson, who had restored and rebound used copies of schoolbooks, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1901 that there was no violation of law, but required notice that the books were second-hand copies by conspicuous stamp on the cover. In 1891 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Dodd v. Smith, declined to grant Dodd, Mead & Co. an injunction against re-binders who had purchased from them sheets of a fifty-cent paper-covered edition of a novel by E. P. Roe and bound these in cloth to sell at sixty cents in competition with the plaintiff's $1.50 cloth edition.
The Kipling case In 1899 G. P. Putnam's Sons purchased from Kipling's authorized publishers sheets of twelve volumes, added three volumes of non-copyright or otherwise authorized material and published the fifteen volumes, "Brushwood edition," of Kipling's works, with the design of an elephant's head on the binding. Kipling sought an injunction for infringement of copyright, use of trade-mark and unfair competition with the "Outward bound edition" of his works, which also bore an elephant's head. In 1903 the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Coxe, affirmed a decision holding as "a well-recognized principle of law" that "the defendants, having purchased unbound copyrighted volumes, were at liberty, so far as the copyright statute is concerned, to bind and resell them"; that the elephant's head, not being a registered trade-mark, could not be protected as a trademark; and that there was no similarity of editions constituting unfair competition. But in 1907, in Dutton v. Cupples & Leon, the plaintiffs obtained damages for a series of books closely imitating the ​get-up of their "Gem" or "Dainty " series. Passing off, however, cannot be made ground of action when material protectable by copyright has not been copyrighted, as was held in 1908, in Bamforth v. Douglas Post Card Co., by Judge McPherson in the U. S. Circuit Court.
Burlesqued title The suit to enjoin the use of a reversed or burlesque title, when the Boston Herald printed, under the title of "Letters of a son to his self-made father," a skit on Lorimer's "Letters of a self-made merchant to his son," was denied by Judge Morton in the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1903 as involving no deception.
The Drummond case In 1894 Henry Drummond, a British subject, obtained from Judge Dallas, in the U. S. Circuit Court, an injunction restraining Henry Altemus from publishing what purported to be exact reports of twelve lectures, of which eight only had been imperfectly reported in the British Weekly, on the ground that the author had a common law right to restrain the publication "of any literary matter as the plaintiff's, which was not actually his creation, and to prevent fraud."
The new British code The new British measure comprehensively defines infringement as the doing without consent of the owner of the copyright of "anything the sole right to do which is by this act conferred on the owner of the copyright," but specifically excepts (1) fair dealing for private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary; (2) use by an artist of sketches, etc., made for a work of which he has sold the copyright, provided he does not repeat or imitate that work; (3) graphic reproduction of objects, or photographing of paintings, etc., in a public place; (4) limited extracts for use in schoolbooks; (5) report of lectures unless prohibited by placard; (6) reading or recitation of reasonable extracts.