New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1917-10-31
COP WRIGHT GA IS
7 sri Lid
FRANK scoBIEssoF. SLEEPY EYE
GETS SIS APIECE FOR
POST CARDS

Occasionally the injustice Of the
laws as framed and taken advantage.
| of by those whose fingers itch for easy
money is illustrated in the small city
as well as in the larger places. Such.
was the case when Frank Scobie of.
Sleepy Eye demanded the ridiculous
sum Of $4,000 apiece for the use Of
photographs which he placed on the
open market at S cents each. The
Federal Law gives permission to artists,
(and others) to copyright their works
| of art. The law was framed in the in
terests Of large publishers who secure.
their works of art at enormous expense,
sending their men to all parts Of the globe
to secure photo graphs to be used in
their publications. Mr.. Scobie saw a
chance to make little money on the
| side and he too secured copyrights on
photographs taken by him which forbade
anyone to reproduce his pictures with
out permission and without paying
tribute. He acted on the theory tina :.
most Of the people would be. ignorant
of the provisions of the copyright law
and in this surmise he has been correct,
for the Review is not the first victim
to fall into the gentle hands of Scobie
Illustrated Hospital.
Five years ago when the Loretto Hos
about o be dedicated Mr.. Scobie took
Ia number of interior views of the hospi-
tai. Thu Review following its custom
lof using pictures to illustrate any new
building of the city, purchased at Pfef-
ferle,s Drug Store halt dozen of these
postal cards from which electros were,
ordered Mr.. Scobie' S. name appeared
on each and the question arose as to
whether it should be left or obliterated
and the matter was settled by leaving.
| the name, on the ground that it would
advertise his photos for him and increase
their sale - {:. ~ s.: Z
Photographer Seeks Damages.
With no idea Of doing Mr.. Scobie the
least damage; the issue of the Review
was: sent out to the regular subscribers
and no more. Hardly was the ink dry
when Mr. Scobie appeared demanding
damages for sviola tions of copyright.
Legal counsel advised that he could
mot possibly. secure any damages on so
flinlsy a. pretext. The. Review had
sold a bakers dozen of extra copies
the paper. containing the hospital
pictures and no possible damage could
have resulted to Mr.. Scobie thru the
publication of the pictures.
Tried to Be Fair.
| However, to be fair, the Review offered
Mr.. Scobie full comp for his work,
Iofered him endorsement for all ex-
| penses incurred in securing the photo
graphs and a cash value for each photo
Egraph besides. But Mr.. Scobie wan ed
his pound Of flesh, and while the Review
has been reluctant to yield up its hard
earned shekels, it seemed that the law
las construed by the highest court would
hardly justify the Federal Judge before
whom the case was to be tried to decide
in anyway except for the plaintiff no
] matter. how unjust he might find the
] operation OF the law. The statute does
not require proofs that plaintiff has suf-
fered any damages, even to. the extent
] of one penny but it does require the
Court to assess damages in the sum Of
tat least $50. for each and every infringe
i ment of copyright, if it finds that the
! photograph in question comes within
the purview Of the copyright law.
Used Seven Pictures.
! The Review and the Post had both
made use of seven OF, Mr. Scobie's 5 cent
: postcards and Mr.. Scobie demanded
!, damages, claiming that under the law
he could collect a maximum of $2800.0O.
All this happened in the unlucky year
Isof 1913. He threatened suit and finally
did start; suit after the Review refused
! more than i $50 on a compromise.
The case was set for trial at the October
term Of the United States District Court
held at Mankato the past week and would
have been reached for trial early this
week, if the defendant had not decided
that it, would in the end be cheaper
to pay $3.50 and costs than.ato 60 to trial
and accordingly settled the case on this
basis, a check for $3.50 going forward