New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-01-05
POINTS IN COPYRIGHT LAW.

POINTS IN COPY RlU Ill LA W.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA SUI.
ARTICLES ON AMERICAN TOPICS "hi'ihN hi
AMERICANS AND DULY COPYRIGHTED, ARE THEY
PROTECTED AGAINST REISSUE IN THIS c0UN-
rpv,-rHE1p rsy IN THE PHILADELPHIA RE
PRINT AND THE SUIT WHICH HAS GROWN OUT
OFT
Amono the many curious and intricate cues
f,ops which the absence OF international copyright
law has raised, the suit now pending between e pu
fishers of the Encyclopaedia Britannica" ana j. n"
etoddart & Co.. OF Philadelphia, the publishers OF Tue
American reprint of this work, has special interest luz
authors publishers and people in general IL not ohy
involves large Investment OF money but raises several
delicate points OF copyright law on at least one OF "cn
the courts have heretofore thrown no hGht' "heh inc
publication OF the present and ninth ecluon oi 'ni'
work was undertaken, the necessary outlay Oh literary
industry and of money oreseen to be 80 great ta'
the estimates must made the basis OF an interoa
,,opsl circulation II not long, however before
NJ stoddart Co., offered the public reprint at 20 per
volume as against 50 for the original work. which 'e'
Brown Co.. of Boston, supplying to the American
market through the trade subsequently inc hohois"
publishers the Messrs Black. decided 10 print rom e
original mates an edition small quarto, which IL also
sold at 50 per volume. Charles scrbners Sons are INC
American importers Of this editiOnand control lie sae III
The United States In the current tent volume OF the s
fborzed editions Of the work the 'he COZ
Incorporated TOUR
can subjects hlch had been previously written ~ e
can Authors and copyrighted and published in this cOu-
fry These articles were: Georgia. by ;. A. pr"Ae
Garrison" by Oliver johnson /: "Galveston, by
General O. A. Gilmore, and Galatin,' ny he"I5
Cabot Lodge Notice of the fact that these articles hao
been copyrighted appears on the back OF the ntcpage
f this tenth volume also tde page where cach
article nppears in the body of the work shory ater
the volume out IT was learned that J' NJ S'ouu'
& Co. intended TO reprint 1t with the ABOVE aruccs e
produced In spite of the copyrights Ihereupoh n''o
was addressed to them expressing wish that 'heS
,, The articles and adding that consent TO thelr use
would not be given. No attention was paid 10 'hS
notice and the articles were printed verbatim Ell
lteratim The present action was then brought
There ere in point of law four suits. Henry CABOT
Lodge as author and Charles scribner as pnDlSher'
be,pc the frst; A. c. Black to whom General Gilmore
ess,oned rae " Galveston" bling the second; ana
Charles oriba rs Sons bring the third aud fourth
Oliver Johm.op sud :. A. Drake having assigne" 10
this firm all it in their respective articles III e"oA
instance x 3 ast d that ]. NJ. stoddart d 20 DC
restrain e. rom printing. Publishing selling or exposing
to sale. ~ ausns or bling in any way concerned IL
Tho pr ,rR or ag Of any copies OF the reprint OF
the t.ntl voiuue, without emitting from the volume
thcse eopyIigl; and that they De oroeIeo W
lender an account OF the copies OF the reprint "eh
they have sod and to pay ever the prOhts 10 Tue p
tiff and TO surrender up to the court the copies OF manu.
and the Mats OF ne same be cancelled and destroyed
,s far ne tboy consist of this copyright matter No
answers have set been FLED to the DIS "
complaint The suits have. however, Deeh III
court on motions 10 restrain stoddar' a w.
from prbushnG he teeth volume without sueh
o;,,ssno while tls Issue is pending Laet Monday this
,oo+on was arqucf in United states Court at Phia
de,pha before Judge Butler Some points In the ueehce
were then made known. Special stress was laln Oh INC
great pecuiary interests which would suner lroui an
Injunction IL claimed that very large amount Vi
money had been ~ vested in reprintng the WORK ana
that for wears the publishers had allowed to go on
nnmoles,cd; that when the repriOt was undertaken
Americans were obliged TO pay 80 a volume Ior the
work and hence that reprint at So per volume was an
en,erntse nv which the American people would receive
substantial benefit that at that time there was nothing
to prevent reprintng OF the work. and that IN oner
Ing II TO the American people at nearly one-haif The
original price without compensation 10 the EnShsn pun
fishers the defendants had not only abundant prece-
dent in the history American publishing but their
business was strictly honorable before the law In he
ooso NJ the article on Galveston 1t argued that
the convricht held by the Messrs Black was invalid
This raised point of law, on which so recent
writer as Drone while arguing that the right exlss
saws there yet Judicial right Al hrst readnI
it would seem by the law which says an author may
assign his work TO another person who may copyright
A. MATES not whether the assignee be foreigner or
native But this is Of the points yet to be deter
mined. The defendants further held that their SUD
scrers had promised exact reprint ana that 10
omit these copyright articles would cause them great
injury although SAID that as good or better ar
tcles could without difficulty be obtained This point
winch promises to be important one is met by the
claim that the reprint not an exact copy OF the og
tna Ii is certain thar additions have peen maze W
the original matter Articles have been altered ana
new ones have been inserted At the argument pefoie
Juage Buter Il was admitted by the defendants cou
sol that there had been additions up TO the fourth vol
ume hut II is now said that they extend through every
volume up TO The NINTH
The notices of copyright have been reproduced IN the
reprint and one Of the curious anomalies III the case
tba the foonotes which say the articles are gwen Dy
consent of Charles scrDnets sons reproduced Also
Wocn met with this point the defendants replied that
~ r object was 10 protect the articles from being printed
IN America in pamphlet form to the INJURY OF the
authors and publishers But. again, was claimed by
the defendants that granting TO the Messrs BLACK the
right to the articles In the Encyclop1dia Britain
MICA permission virtually given 10 all persons 10
nse them The decision Of Judge Butler iu the prelim
nary motion was against the plaintiffs he oased IL on
The ground that the injury likely to result TO the plain
iii from denial Of the motion would be very much less
than that which would be suffered by the defendants II
IL was granted before the trial Were tho injunction
issued the result would be that the entire field would
ne gwen 10 the publishers of the original work 10 the
exclusion OF the reprint and that the Held would pfoOa
b he occupied and harvested before the case could he
concluded while in denial Of the injunction the plain
tsis would suffer very little, if any, dimnution in the
sales Of their article.
LITERARY NOTES.