The New York herald., 1862-01-11
The Law OF Copyright.
PROTECTION OF DRAMATIC AUTHORs-vERDICT Fol
THE PLAINTIFF.
UNIFIED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Hon. Judoe Shinmap

TIE FAAlHTIfFs
UNIFIED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Shipman
JAN. 10.-Don Bourcicauk F6u and Lingard.-1his
case already noticed was commenced yesterday and
concluded to-day. is action for violation of the
dramatic copyright sct IN playing version e tie plain
Tins drama Of the "Ootoroon," at the New Bowery
theatre in January $780, under the mani of the
defendants The damages claimed by the plaintiff were
$4,000. The facts Of the were as folows:--Ihe
plaintiff whlo engaged at the Winter Garden theatre on
Broadway, wrote and produced this play. After it had
some difficulty occurred between the author and
the manager and the former withdrew from the theatre
Mr. VIM Tryon the treasurer Of the defendants applied
70 Mr. stuart to purchase the manuscript OF the drama,
and for the consideration OF S10O the transfer was
made, Mr. Stuart retaining copy of the manuscript.
By subsequent arrangement the scenery and
machinery Of the piece became the property
Of the defendants for the of $3.50. On the
Monday after these transactions the piece produced
at the defendants theatre. proved that the usual
advertisements in the daily and weekly papers, and by
20, and small bills notice was given that the piece
was TO be produced by permission OF Mr. Stuart and the
pa ntif knew of the performance by passing the theatre
daily, gnzing of the defendants Lingard, one
d the defendants, proved that it customary for
managers to employ dramatic author, at a weekly
salary, to write pieces fer the management which then
bcc~me the sole property Of the managers. IL was
therefore, contsned that the right had passed. from the
em.cyc to the employer, and that Stuart and Bour
ccan!t was the Of the DRAMA he having received
for ten weeks salary Of $700 per week After this the
agreement was changei in order to produce the "Octo
room condition Of his Bourcicau having onehaf
Of tho net profits Under this Of facts counsel for
the defendants exJudge Whiting contendcd that either
the d anna had been dedicated to the pblic use or an
abandonment Of his right out copyright othe-
wise he had passed away his right TO Stuart & Field who
had transferred 1t to the defendants
judge Shpman in his charge to the jury, submitted
il it the original production Of the plaintiff was in
him. that he produced, wrote it, Stuart testified, and
the fact that he in the employ OF StGart would
confer upon the latter title to the play and right
rse beyond the terms OF his contract, whi h
bring o,t his play at the Winter Garden. When man
hires another TO write work the literary composer
tho antho., and not the employee The author ployed
to write book or play, although he may facts ard
in idcnts open all if he his intellectual labor
ptd ices composition Substantially new itself he is
entitled to copyright. Many ofthc finest productions CT
genius, productions that have enriched the literature Of
kro"n The old m,tcrals MAJ be 'ikencd to dry bones
which the breath Of creative genius Clothes
abandon his production to the public: bat in this
cas-, there Is no evidence OF any such abandonment
tie part cf the plaintiff That undcr the terms Of the
contract between the plaintiff and Stuart, his
tee, Field whatever might b. their right to represent
the play under thorow management supervision, the
contract gavc them power soil that right to the dc.
eadaEs and they could confer right upon the defend.
ants to play ut the New Bowery theatre. entirc.y
dependent establishment, witlont the Of the
auhr. That If the defendants did represent il.
stated by Miss Burke, hon the jury will inquire If was
with the conseht Of the p'aintir II was with the
sent OF the plnnt then he not Untitled to II
without hs he s entitled recover. As the
con ent is alleged by the defendants the
claim Of Plaintiff the burthcn Of proof the defendants.
The play BILL upon which the defendants seek to charge
tie plant with knowledge, and from which know ledge
without dissent thy seek to iler his assent counted
u?oi tho purchase from Stuart His consent was obtain
cd. ow, is for the jury to say whether the defend
arts were or even supposed they were, acting under the
nsent Of the plaintiff Extract from the play bill of the
New Dcwery theatr:-
To THE PuBLc.-Mcf Fox & Iinrard beg 10 inform
patrons and the public that they have purchased
W. art ESQ, the proprietor of the Winter Garden the
drama OF tie "Ccoroon with all scenery
critics us!c, machinery and everything appeftanin
the piece, VIII! viii BE- produced In the brilliant man
ner that clai aceiizcd its original sueoess.
The statute says less than SIO0 for the rst nigh,
and $50 for subsequent nights. Miss Burke says nine
nights. This gives $500. There Is evidence upon
which The jury can, with proprety exceed the fixed
by tho statute.
The jury, after short absence brought verdict OF
$500 for plaut which costs Counsel for pan-
tih Mr. II. Cranm, and for defence c.-Judge Whiting