Opinion of the Court. 318 U.S. Congress, speaking through its responsible members, had any intention of altering what theretofore had not been questioned, namely, that there were no statutory restraints upon the assignment by authors of their renewal rights, it is almost certain that such purpose would have been manifested. The legislative materials reveal no such intention. We agree with the court below, therefore, that neither the language nor the history of the Copyright Act of 1909 lend support to the conclusion that the "existing law" prior to 1909, under which authors were free to assign their renewal interests if they were so disposed, was intended to be altered. We agree, also, that there are no compelling considerations of policy which could justify reading into the Act a construction so at variance with its history. The policy of the copyright law, we are told, is to protect the author-if need be, from himself—and a construction under which the author is powerless to assign his renewal interest furthers this policy. We are asked to recognize that authors are congenitally irresponsible, that frequently they are so sorely pressed for funds that they are willing to sell their work for a mere pittance, and therefore assignments made by them should not be upheld. It is important that we distinguish between two problems implied in these situations: whether, despite the contrary direction given to this legislation by the momentum of history, we are to impute to Congress the enactment of an absolute statutory bar against assignments of authors' renewal interests, and secondly, whether, although there be no such statutory bar, a particular assignment should be denied enforcement by the courts because it was made under oppressive circumstances. The first question alone is presented here, and we make no intimations upon the other. It is one thing to hold that the courts should not make themselves instruments of injustice by lending their aid to the enforce ment of an agreement where the author was under such coercion of circumstances that enforcement would be unconscionable. Cf. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 248 U. S. 67, 70; Lonergan v. Buford, 148 U. S. 581, 589-91; Snyder v. Rosenbaum, 215 U. S. 261, 265–66; Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 160; The Elfrida, 172 U. S. 186, 193-94. It is quite another matter to hold, as we are asked in this case, that regardless of the circumstances surrounding a particular assignment, no agreements by authors to assign their renewal interests are binding. It is not for courts to judge whether the interests of authors clearly lie upon one side of this question rather than the other. If an author cannot make an effective assignment of his renewal, it may be worthless to him when he is most in need. Nobody would pay an author for something he cannot sell. We cannot draw a principle of law from the familiar stories of garret-poverty of some men of literary genius. Even if we could do so, we cannot say that such men would regard with favor a rule of law preventing them from realizing on their assets when they are most in need of funds. Nor can we be unmindful of the fact that authors have themselves devised means of safeguarding their interests. We do not have such assured knowledge about authorship, and particularly about song writing, or the psychology of gifted writers and composers, as to justify us as judges in importing into Congressional legislation a denial to authors of the freedom to dispose of their property possessed by others. While authors may have habits making for intermittent want, they may have no less a spirit of independence which would resent treatment of them as wards under guardianship of the law. We conclude, therefore, that the Copyright Act of 1909 does not nullify agreements by authors to assign their renewal interests. We are fortified in this conclusion by Opinion of the Court. 318 U.S. reference to the actual practices of authors and publishers with respect to assignments of renewals, as disclosed by the records of the Copyright Office. Since the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 198, 213, assignments of copyrights must be recorded in the office of the Register of Copyrights. The records of the Copyright Office, we are advised, show that during the period from July, 1870, to July, 1871, the first period in which assignments were recorded in the Office, 223 assignments were registered. Of these 14 were assignments of renewal interests. Similarly, during the first six months of 1909, immediately preceding the enactment of the Copyright Act of that year, 304 assignments were recorded, and of these 62 were assignments of renewal interests. In the six-month period following the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1909, there was no significant change: 404 assignments, of which 68 were transfers of renewals. And, to round out the picture, in the most recent complete volume of records (covering the period from January 27, 1943, to February 12, 1943), 135 assignments were recorded, and of these 29 were assignments of renewals. Many assignments have thus been entered into in good faith upon the assumption that they were valid and enforceable. In addition to all other books and pamphlets relevant to our problem, we have consulted all of the twenty treatises on the American law of copyright available at the Library of Congress. Eight of these state, without qualification, that an author can effectively agree to assign his renewal interest before it has been secured; two state 5 Curtis on Copyright (1847) 235; Drone on Copyright (1879) 326-32; Howell, Copyright Law (1942) 108; 2 Morgan, Law of Literature (1875) 229-30; Spalding, Law of Copyright (1878) 111; Macgillivray, Law of Copyright (1902) 266-67; Wittenberg, Protection and Marketing of Literary Property (1937) 45; Ladas, International Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (1938) 772-73. the rule with some reservations; ten are either silent or ambiguous. And the forms of assignment of copyright in treatises and standard form-books generally contain a provision designed to transfer the renewal interest.R The available evidence indicates, therefore, that renewal interests of authors have been regarded as assignable both before and after the Copyright Act of 1909. To hold at this late date that, as a matter of law, such interests are not assignable would be to reject all relevant aids to construction. Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE MURPHY conclude that the analysis of the language and history of the copyright law in the dissenting opinion of Judge Frank in the court below, 125 F. 2d 949, 954, demonstrates a Congressional purpose to re DeWolf, Outline of Copyright Law (1925) 65-66; Weil, American Copyright Law (1917) 365-66. 'Amdur, Copyright Law and Practice (1936) 540-41; Frohlich and Schwartz, Law of Motion Pictures (1918) 548-49; Marchetti, Law of Stage, Screen, and Radio (1936) 67; Bowker, Copyright— Its History and Its Law (1912) 117, 438; Bump, Law of Patents, Trade-marks, Labels, and Copyrights (2d ed. 1884); Elfreth, Patents, Copyrights, and Trade-marks (1913); Graham, Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights (2d ed. 1921); Law, Copyright and Patent Laws of the United States, 1790-1870 (3d ed. 1870); Copinger, Law of Copyright (7th ed. 1936); Shafter, Musical Copyright (2d ed. 1939) 174. 8 Wittenberg, Protection and Marketing of Literary Property (1937) 195, 261; Shafter, Musical Copyright (2d ed. 1939) 577; Gordon, Annotated Forms of Agreement (1932) 32; 6 Winslow, Forms of Pleading and Practice (3d ed. 1934) § 8267, pp. 501-02; Birdseye, Encyclopedia of General Business and Legal Forms (1924) 280-81; Amdur, Copyright Law and Practice (1936) 836; Church, Legal and Business Forms (2d ed. 1925) 344. Opinion of the Court. 318 U.S. serve the renewal privilege for the personal benefit of authors and their families. They believe the judgment below should be reversed. DE ZON v. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 436. Argued February 4, 1943.-Decided April 5, 1943. 1. A seaman who, in the course of his employment, suffers physical injury due to the neglect or incompetence of the ship's doctor in treating his illness has a right of action against the shipowner under the Jones Act. P. 668. 2. To such an action it is no defense that the shipowner used due care in selecting the ship's doctor. P. 664. 3. In this case, involving the right of a seaman to recover for injury to and for the loss of an eye, alleged to have resulted from negligence of the ship's doctor in his diagnosis, or in his failure to send the seaman to a hospital at a port of call, there was not sufficient evidence of negligence to require submission to the jury. P. 671. 129 F. 2d 404, affirmed. CERTIORARI, 317 U. S. 617, to review a judgment affirming a judgment on a directed verdict in an action for damages for personal injuries brought by a seaman against his employer, the above-named steamship company. Mr. Herbert Resner for petitioner. Mr. Edward F. Treadwell, with whom Mr. Reginald S. Laughlin was on the brief, for respondent. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner, a seaman, brought an action at law under the Jones Act' against the respondent shipowner. He 1 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688. |