Court Opinion

ID: 9860309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:17:51.155492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:51.405884
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CAMPBELL, specially concurring: Although I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, I do so on other grounds. For that reason I offer these comments. The complaint in replevin filed in this case sought, inter alia, an order by the trial court for the possession of the property involved. The judgment order entered in favor of plaintiff provides as follows: “It is hereby ordered that after a full trial on the merits that this court finds for plaintiff Catherine Sykee and against defendant Georgia Lee Roulo. It is further ordered that the prior finding of this court that plaintiff shall have possession of the negatives is confirmed.” Notwithstanding the above order, defendant has devoted her brief to arguments relating to issues pertaining to matters arising under the Federal Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. sec. 101 et seq. (1976)) and the matter of the title to the negatives by virtue of said Act. Defendant has not pointed out any reference in the record to indicate that the trial court considered any matters relating to the Federal Copyright Act or made any ruling relating to title to the negatives. The judgment order is completely silent on any issue relating to the title or ownership of the negatives or the Copyright Act. In fact the record discloses that defendant admitted that she has never filed any application or registration pursuant to the Copyright Act. The pictures were taken on or about November 11, 1981, and the complaint for replevin was filed on March 10, 1982. Defendant has not demonstrated how she was entitled to invoke the protection of said act in these proceedings, where the facts are in dispute, without the necessity of compliance with various statutory formalities, such as registration. It appears that the trial court limited its determination as to the right of possession and did not find it necessary to make factual findings with regard to the issue of title or ownership to said negatives by either party. See Western Photo & Supply Co. v. Lyons (1958), 15 Ill. 2d 318, 155 N.E.2d 1. For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the results reached in this case and would affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.