Court Opinion

ID: 9417898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:43:14.037376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:52.541785
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice HaelaN,
with whom concurred Me. Justice MoKeNNa,
dissenting.
Judges Lurton, Day and Severens, of the Circuit Court of Appeals, concurred in affirming the judgment of the District Court. Their views were thus expressed in an opinion delivered by Judge Lurton : “ What we hold is this: That if a chromo, lithograph, or other print, engraving,- or picture has no other use than that of a mere advertisement, and no value aside from this function, it would not be promotive of the useful arts, within the meaning of the constitutional provision, to protect the ‘ author ’ in the exclusive use thereof, and the copyright statute should not be construed as including such a publication, if any other construction is admissible. If a mere label simply designating or describing an article to which it is attached, and which has no value separated from the article, does not come within the constitutional clause upon the subject of copyright, it must follow that a pictorial illustration designed and useful only as an advertisement, and having no intrinsic value other than its function as an advertisement, must be equally without the obvious meaning of the Constitution. *253It must have some connection with the fine arts to give it intrinsic value, and. that it shall have is the meaning which we attach to the act of June 18,1874, amending the provisions of the copyright law. We are unable to discover anything useful or meritorious in the design copyrighted by the plaintiffs in error other than as an advertisement of acts to be done or exhibited to the public in Wallace’s show. No evidence, aside from the deductions which are to be drawn from the prints themselves, was offered to show that these designs had any original artistic qualities. The jury could not reasonably have found merit or value aside from the purely business object of advertising a show, and the instruction to find for the defendant was not error. .Many other points have been urged as justifying the result reached in the court below. We find it unnecessary to express any opinion upon them, in view of the conclusion already announced. The judgment must be affirmed.” Courier Lithographing Co. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 993, 996.
1 entirely concur in these views, and therefore dissent from the opinion and judgment of this court. The clause of the Constitution giving Congress power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited terms to authors and inventors "¡she exclusive right to their respective works and discoveries, does not, as I think, embrace a mere advertisement of a circus.
Me. Justice MoKenka authorizes me to say that he also dissents.