Court Opinion

ID: 8634662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:43:14.299025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:53.414100
License: Public Domain

THE COURT,
in its charge, stated that intention could not be taken into view. If a *375copyright has been invaded, whether the party knew it was copyrighted or not, he is liable to the penalty. As to its being different from the original, in music, as in writing, the omission of a word or line or paragraph could not change it so as to avoid the statute. The poetry, in this instance, could not affect the result, as the copyright was for the music. A defendant is at liberty to show that the work copyrighted was iiot original with plaintiff, or that it was an abbreviation or alteration, and the jury could determine whether it was calculated to infringe the copyright or not. In cases of patents, the jury is at liberty to assess damages, but not in violation of copyright. The penalty in the latter is fixed by law. The jury, if they consider that defendant has republished without leave obtained in writing from plaintiff, must proceed to ascertain the number of sheets proved to have been sold, or offered for sale (not the number printed), and return a verdict of one dollar for each sheet so sold or offered to be sold.
Verdict for plaintiff, $625.