New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-01-23
LES DANICUEFF.
AUTHORS RIGHT AND COPYRIGHT.

AUTHORS RIGHT AND COPlEI6Hi'
The suit of Sheridan Shook and Albert NJ.
Palmer to restrain Adolph Ncuendorn irom producing
at the Germania Theater German version of Z" Les
Daniched" came before Judge DonOhue. in Supreme
Court Chambers on motion to make permanent an III
junction. The play was written by Alexandra Dumas
and Pierre dc Newsky. 1t has not been published IN
French except the stage, and though German trans
laion has been published it Is claimed that TINS was
without the authors permission and surrcpitions pub
LEGATION by those to whom the authors had sold mere
stage right for Austria 1t is claimed further that the
authors through Theodore Mchaess leave sold to the
plaintiffs for 1000 francs onehalf of the exclusive right
perform the play i'll the United States, alh the other
half to French & Son, from whom the plaintiffs nave
bought their right, thus obtaining the whole right Tor
this country.
On the other side an affidavit of Max Freeman is pre-
scented, stating that he an actor in the Vienna
Thcatcr of Herr tanner, with whom Dumas was under
furnish all his plays for performance ana
publication in the German language In vienna am 'e
Austrian Empire. When Les Danchen" was brought
out tanner wrote to Dumas claiming it, but Dumas
denied any right in IT, referring him to Pierre de Newsky
the author Newsky sold the right To Baron Scheu OF
the stadt Tncaer, who had translation made and pub
lished it in German. II openly sold III Vienna and
no objection was made, though the Austrian laws are
very stringent against infringement OF authors 1ghtS
and by treaty French authors nave eqJu rights Win
f. Kaenberg affidavit of the publication OF the
the protection OF authors rights in the German Empire
and the protection given by society there by an inne
date denuucatOn Of Unauthorized publication Inc
defendants claimed that they had derived their play
through these authorized sources
ExJudgc Dittenhocier argued that an authors right
in his work absolute, unless by some cqulVOca ACT
lie abandoned il 10 the public He might make any
special disposition OF IL, assign H. sell II,
use it long as there was no dedication
to the public. He might even print II for spe-
among special class as the act0 s 81 hcier
and sil not abandon his right. The acting OF IL III
theater was not such dedication. Ii differed in TINS
fom copyright, that il protection before giving To
ia Eunlc. while copyright a reservation OF par
ucular right srrendcrng the work II the nhblc
The question here whether or not there had ote
such dedication by the publication Ia Vienna ii that
publication was unauthorized by the authors the Qial
ilfs' rights were impaired, not even II the pub
lcaion was authorized for Germany alone Nor dld II
matter that this tran Station Whatever the law as
to copyright the Sht was protected against an
ada patiOns and changes OF mere form The piantlus
md offered allow NIL NcuendO to use the play on
simple acknowledgment that was win thcr ollhs
Henry Wehle for the defendant cOntended that al-
thor's right could 20 further than copyright when
dill prevent TRANSACTIONS. The evidence showed that
the publication IN Germany fun aud authorized, ana
the plaintiffs pointed out no damage from the paIug oI
this version al the German thcater Judge D0hohue re-
ser Ci Is