The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-12-30


the aid Of his cabinet; and be and they will in the end
be triumphantly sustained by the people
Interesting Decision Uncle Toms Cabin.
Reported for the Pennsy ysnan.l
In the United States circuit court Saturday last. the
following opinion was delivered by Hon. c. Ger. in
the OF Mrs Stowe, author OF Uncle Toms Cabin,
and Calvin L. Stowe Us. f. W. Thomas, publisher of
German version OF tina. work
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The bill in this alleges that Mrs. Stowe is the
thor and proprietor OF work call " Uace Toms Cabin,
and has obtained copyright Tor the same in due form Of
law; that the defendant has translated into German,
printed, published, and sold the same, newspaper and
pamphlet form; that such translation is an infringement
of compainania copyright; and therefore prays an in
junction account, &c
The answer admits the facts stated in the BILL but de-
MES that such ranslang, printing pub shng, &C., is an
Infringement OF compialnanls' cops right
The question raised BY these peadngs has not been
decided either in England or this country IN case where
II is directly involved.
In many Of The States of Europe has been made the
subject OF special legislation La France iurists appear
10 be divided in opinion Pardissus is OF opinion that
translation is not an infringement OF copyright Re-
nouad, on the contrary, argues that IL. MIR Godson,
in his work on PATENTS concurs with Pardissus. Mr.
Curtis. in his treatise copyright agrees with Renouard
Ia this balance q opinions among learned juilsts we
must endeavor TO find asceained principles OF the
common law, established by judicial decision, on
which TO found cur conclusion.
In order to decide what Is an Infringement OF an
thor's rights, inquire what constitutes literary
property, and what is recognised such by the OF
Congress, and secured and protected thereby
An author may be said 10 be the creator or inventor
both of HE IDEAS contained in his book and the combi
nation OF words TO represent them Before publication,
he has the exclusive possession Of his invention His
dominion is perfect But when he has published his
book aud given his thoughts sentiments. knowledge, or
discoveries TO The world, he can have longer
elusive possession OF Them Such an appropriation be-
impossible and Is Inconsistent with the object OF
publication. The authors conceptions have become the
properly OF his readers who cannot be deprived
Of the OF them or Their right 10 communicate them
to others clothed IN their own language, BY lecture BY
treatise. 4lH
The claim literary property, therefore, after publica
ton. cannot DC in The ideas. sentiments, the creations
OF the imagination OF The poet noxes discovered
from the language, idom, style or the outward SEM
blance and EXHIBITION of them. HIS exclusive property
in the creation OF his mind cannot he vested in the author
distractions, but only IN the form which he
has given them, and the language in which he has
ciohyt them When he has sold his book, the only
pro- ~ which he reserves TO himself. or which the law
gives 10 him, the exclusive right TO multiply the copies
ot that particular combination OF characters which
h6its 10 the eyes Of another the ideas intended be
yeyed This IA what The law terms copy, copyright
See Curtis on Copyright g. 10, IL, &c.
The statute OF Anne, c. 10, (Which far it de-
scbes the rights and property OF author is but decsr
atory OF the common law, is entitled IAN act for the
encouragement OF learning, by vesing the copies oil
printed books IN the authors. &c. II gives the author
'the sole right OF printing and Ieprntng such book
books and describes those nho infringe the authors
rights persons "prinng, reprn,ng importing such
book or books" without the license OF the author Our
acts OF Congress give substantially The same description
both OF the authors nights and what ID an infringe
ment oil them.
Now. altIiossh the legal definition of shook" may
be much more extensive IMAM that given by lexicog-
raphes, and may include sheet oil music well
bound volume; yet necessarily conveys the idea OF
thought or conceptions clothed in language in musical
characters, written, printed, published Its identity
does not consist merely In the ideas, knowledge in
formation communicated, bal IN the same conceptions
clothed in the same words, which make IL the
position. (See Black Com, 1861 A "copy" of
book must therefore, be airanscnp of The language 10
which the conceptions of the author are cothed-oi
something printed and imboded in tangible shape
The came conceptions clothed in another language
not constitute the came composition IL be called
a transcript or "copy" of the same book"
have seen literal translation of Bnmss poems into
French prose but 10 csll copy OF the original would
be as ridiculous as the translation itself.
The notion that translation s piracy OF he original
composition Is founded on the analogy assumed between
copyright and patents for Inventions, and where the in
fngiog machine 10 only change OF the form proper
ions OF the original while il imbodes the principle or
essence OF the invention But as the authors exclusive
property in literary composition, or his copyright con-
ssts only in right 10 multiply copies OF his book. and
enjoy the profits thereirom, and no, il cxcIusive right
TO his conceptions and Inventions, which may be termed
the power oil his composition, the Argument from the sup
Hence, in questions OF infringement Of copyright the
inquiry is not whether the defendant has used the
thoughts. conception. information, discoveries promu
gated by the original, but whether his composition may
he considered new work, requiring invention, learning
and Judgment or only mere transcript OF the whole or
parts OF the original with merely ioerable variations
Hence alec, the many 10 be found the reports,
which decide that BONA fds sbfIdgmen Of 4 book 10
not an infringement OF copyright U
Tomake good Translation OF a work often requires
more learning, talent and judgment than required to
write the original. Many can transfer IRON one Ian
gunge 10 another but few translate To call The trans
laon oil an authors ideas and plions into another
language copy Of his book would be abuse OF
terms, and arbitrary judicial legislation.
Although the question now under confederation was
not directly in Iseoe IN the gres, Of Miller Taylor
vet the inference that Translation ia not infringe
Of copyright logical result, and stated by the
judges themselves as necessary cosoIlsry, from the
principles OF law then decided ty The court
That case exhausted the argument, and has finally
settled the question 10 the nature ol the property
which an auihor has in his works and il 10, that after
publication. his property consists IN the fright OF copy
which sienhes % the soe right OF printing, publishing,
and selling his literary composition or kook"-not tba,
he haa such property in his original conceptions that
he alone them IN the comp~si,on oil new
work, coihe them different dress by translation
He may be incompetent to such ask or to make new
work out OF such old materials; and neither the common
law nor the statute gives him such monopoly, even oil
his own creations,
An author, says Lord Mansfred has the property
IN his book which the King has 10 the English uansa
ton Of the Bible. Yet il any man should turn the
PsaImss or The Writings OF Solomon or job, into
the King could not stop the psntlnAo sale OF such
work II u the eathoss work the lkag has no power
or control over the suhjec,-maier His power rests in
gopstty His whole r'Gh rests upoa the foundation Of
Mr. Jaatscs Wiliea ia answer Tie question, Where
in consists the identity OF book" says Certainly
bsns ~ limitations, ,fanslaons, and abrdsmenvs are
d6srsn and in respect Of properly may be considered
new works" ~
And Nj Justice Ashton observes: "The publication
ri n cnfnpoai dn.s The ne