New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-08

whom the Stock and Gold Company had &C
quired the exclusive right Of use for the pc
Rod of thirty minutes after receipt. Herman
telegraphed it to his customers, many of whom
had stock indicators in public places, and
exposed the news to public gaze by
means of printed tapes The Man
haitian Stock Quotation Company, which
was also engaged in the business of sup
plying foreign financial news, had copied
kilograms from Kiernans bulletins and tapes
as well as those of the Gold and Stock Com
pany. Upon these facts Herman applied for
an injunction to prevent the Manhattan Com
pany and Abbott, their agent, from supplying
to their customers news thus appropriated
and his claim has been sustained by the Special
Term of the Supreme Court.
The case involved two leading questions of
law First, whether there can be any property
in Geographic news second, whether such
property if it exist is lost by giving the news
to the public by means of bulletins and tapes
connected with stock indicators. In other
words, do such acts constitute publications.
The first point is very simple one, as the
entire current of copyright legislation and adj
Indication both in England and the United
entitled to property in valuable facts and
information which he has collected and
utilized by skill, diligence, and expense
This right is in the nature of literary prop
erty, which is protected both under the COM
mon law and by statute. But there Is no
statutory protection unless the matter has been
copyrighted, and common law protection ceases
when publication has been made. AS the news
in this case had not been copyrighted, it is
evident that the plaintiff had no property
therein unless he could show that there had
been no publication. The pivotal question,
therefore, was whether the appearance of the
news upon bulletins and printed tapes in pub
lie places could be construed as a publication
in law.
Legally this problem is difficult; but if it
were a question of justice or of common sense
it would be simple enough. The great pecuni
airy value of tclcgraphc news is fully recog
nized; and enterprise and outlay in the c0llec
ton of such news ought to be rewarded
with the profit arising from exclusive
use But the law frequently represents
neither justice nor common sense. The
question was one to lie determined
by judicial precedent, and the difficulty arose
could be found. 1t is well settled in this
country that the public representation of a
manuscript play, OF the delivery of manu-
script sermon, is not a publication. 1t has also
been held by the Irish Chancery Court that
the public exhibition of an original painting Is
not such a publication as will give any person
the right to take copies by photography or
other means; this decision, however, was based
on the ground that t-e public had been warned
by express notice against copying. On the
other hand, it is settled that unqualified pub
LEGATION in print is an abandonment OF the
matter printed. If, therefore, publishing telc
Grams on printed bulletins and tapes is the
same in principle as the delivery of manu-
script lecture, the owners property is not lost #;
if. on the contrary, it is the same rs ordinary
publication in print, the owners exclusive
right is forfeited. If the news in Ques-
ton had been published in a newspaper
every thirty minutes during the day for the
benefit chiefly of those who bad agreed TO pay
for the information thus supplied, there is
little doubt that this would have been pub
lication in law. And yet it may be pertinently
asked, What is the difference whether sub
scribers read their dispatches in extras" or
nation is printed in both cases it may be read
by the general public as soon as printed.
When it was decided that the representation
of Il manuscript play, or the delivery OF lee
turc, was not a publication, it was held that
the meaning of that term in law was a publ
cation in print" and not by word of mouth.
Is it then publication " in print to make
public valuable information by means of
printed tapes
judge Van Brunt has decided that this case
is governed by the same principle as that
which has been applied in the case of The rep
rcSentation of Il manuscript play, the delivery
of manuscript lecture, and the exhibition of
an original painting; that giving the news to
the public in the manner described is but
qualified publication and does not destroy the
owners proprietary rights This will doubtless
be accepted as the rule until reversed by
higher tribunal and whatever may be the
strict construction of the law, this judgment
accolds with right, justice, and common sense.