Case Name: G. RICORDI & CO. v. MASON
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-12-09
Citations: 210 F. 277
Docket Number: No. 76
Parties: G. RICORDI & CO. v. MASON.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 210
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
G. RICORDI & CO. v. MASON.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 9, 1913.)
No. 76.
Copyrights (§ 60 ) — Infringement—Librettos of Operas — “Version.”
A booklet entitled “Opera Stories,” giving a mere fragmentary description of the plot and characters of various operas, each scene being covered by a single paragraph and taken from descriptions other than the operas themselves, is not a “version” within the statute and is not an infringement of the copyrights on the librettos.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Copyrights, Cent. Dig. § 56; Dec. Dig. $ 60. ]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York, dismissing a bill in .equity by which it was sought to enjoin the defendant from publishing and selling a certain publication entitled “Opera Stories,” upon the ground that such publication contained matter infringing certain copyrights owned by complainant. Judge Hazel’s opinion will be found in 201 Fed. 184. Judge Coxe had the same question before him on application for a preliminary injunction which he denied. 201 Fed. 182.
Nathan Burkan, of New York City, for appellant.
G. F. Lewis, of New York City (Alex. P. Browne, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. t Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It seems unnecessary to add anything to the two opinions referred to supra. W,e are clearly of the opinion that these extremely brief epitomes of the plots of the two operas, the librettos of which have been copyrighted and are the property of complainant, are neither of them in any true sense "a version" of the copyrighted work, as that word is used in the statute.