« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
not for damages, in denying which Justice Peckham held that: “The statute in using the word 'damages' did not mean a forfeiture or penalty, as it is difficult to prove the exact amount which the proprietor of a play may suffer by reason of an infringement. It is probable that Congress intended to provide a remedy so that the proprietor could recover a certain amount of damages without proof of what his actual loss had been. In the face of the difficulty of determining the amount of damages, a minimum sum is provided in any case, with the possibility of recovering a larger amount on proof of greater damage. The idea of punishment is not so much suggested as the desire to provide for compensation to the proprietor.” This rule was applied by Judge Lacombe in Patterson v. Ogilvie, in 1902.
In the case of Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co., which came Other probefore the U. S. Circuit Court in Pennsylvania twice cedure do
cisions in 1900, some important decisions or indications as to copyright procedure were given. The defense that under the copyright act the words "any person" did not include a corporation was overruled by Judge Dallas on the ground that the general statute specifically construed the word “person” to extend to partnerships and corporations. In this case an action to recover penalties and an action to replevin copies in possession were started independently and simultaneously, and the Circuit Court of Appeals through Judge Buffington affirmed the decision that as the penalties under the old act were restricted to copies "found in possession,” the suit for penalties was premature. In the later case of Rinehart v. Smith, also in the Pennsylvania circuit, it was pointed out that an action for replevin was not the proper form of suit because in such actions bonds might be given and the forfeiture of copies thus be barred; and in Hegeman v.
Springer, the Circuit Court in New York held, in 1901, that a replevin suit, involving prior demand, was not necessary and that the copyright statute itself gave authority for an action for seizure without previous demand, as would be necessary in replevin proceedings. It was held, however, in the Illinois circuit in an earlier case, that a suit of replevin will lie to enforce forfeiture under the copyright act. Several of these perplexities, however, are removed by the code of 1909, which expressly (sec. 27) authorizes the bringing together of all the remedies in one action.
That there can be no infringement of copyright by acts committed before the copyright was obtained, was decided in 1900 in the U.S. Circuit Court in the case of Maloney v. Foote, where the two parties were jointly engaged in preparing directories, and the plaintiff obtained the copyright and brought suit for infringement for the prior use of material, the question being of contract and not of copyright. On the other hand, as far as practicable, “it is the policy of the law to arrest the pirate before he actually makes off with the plunder,” said Judge Coxe in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Gannet v. Rupert, in 1904.
In 1903, in Champney v. Haag, it was held in the U. S. Circuit Court in Pennsylvania, that though a copy of a photograph of a copyright painting was an infringement, it was not the owner of the original copyright but the owner of the photograph who must sue
but this is contrary to the English ruling case of Lucas v. Williams, and is probably not good law.
A curious case arose in England in 1892 as to the rights of an author after publication and transfer of copyright, in Lee v. Gibbings, where the plaintiff had prepared for the defendant, a publisher, at an agreed price, an edition with introduction of Lord Herbert's autobiography, which the defendant re-issued in a
Party in suit
Suit for injury to reputation
condensed edition without the introduction and other matter by the author, though retaining his name. The author sued to restrain the condensation as an injury to his reputation, but Justice Kekewich in the Chancery Division held that this should be a suit for libel and not under copyright, and declined to enjoin the defendant before the question whether this was actually a libel was settled.
In a case of evident bad faith in wholesale copying, Damages in the U. S. Circuit Court in Hartford Printing Co. v. willful case Hartford Directory Co. awarded as damages the gross receipts less estimated cost.
The provisions for collecting damages and profits Penal proare supplemented in case of infringement, willfully visions and for profit, by penal provisions which make the offense a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or fine not less than $100 or more than $1000, or both, in the discretion of the court, according to the following provision (sec. 28):
"That any person who willfully and for profit shall Penalty for infringe any copyright secured by this Act, or who willful inshall knowingly and willfully aid or abet such in- fringement fringement, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not exceeding one year or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or both, in the discretion of the court."
This provision (sec. 28) includes however a proviso exempting from prevention or punishment the performance of certain musical works for charitable or educational purposes and not for profit, which proviso is given in full in the chapter on dramatic and musical copyright.
Provision is also made in the new statute for the punishment by fine, but not by imprisonment, of any
Penalty for person who with fraudulent intent affixes a copyfalse notice right notice or its equivalent on an uncopyrighted of copyright work, or removes or alters the copyright notice in a
copyrighted work, the fine being not less than $100 nor more than $1000; and of any person who shall knowingly issue, sell or import any article bearing notice of United States copyright which has not been copyrighted in this country, the fine in this case being $100, according to these provisions:
“(Sec. 29.) That any person who, with fraudulent intent, shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this Act, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article, or with fraudulent intent shall remove or alter the copyright notice upon any article duly copyrighted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars. Any person who shall knowingly issue or sell any article bearing a notice of United States copyright which has not been copyrighted in this country, or who shall knowingly import any article bearing such notice or words of the same purport, which has not been copyrighted in this country, shall be liable to a fine of one hundred dollars."
Further provisions as to importation are given in
the chapter on that subject. Allowance of In addition to injunction, damages and profits,
delivery of copies, etc., the courts may allow costs inclusive of attorney's fees as provided:
(Sec. 40.) That in all actions, suits, or proceedings under this Act, except when brought by or against the United States or any officer thereof, full costs shall be allowed, and the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
It seems impracticable and undesirable to attempt in this chapter a statement of the procedure under
former copyright laws in this country, or under the legal methods in vogue in other countries, for which the legal authorities on local procedure and practice should be consulted.
The new British measure provides the usual civil The new remedies of injunction, damages, account and costs British code in the discretion of the court. The author, or if no author the publisher whose name is indicated on the work, is prima facie recognized as owner unless the contrary is proved. Infringing copies or plates become the property of the copyright owner. If the infringer proves ignorance, only an injunction will hold. In architectural works, after construction has been commenced, damages and not an injunction are provided for. Actions must be commenced within three years. Summary conviction is provided for in the case of any person knowingly and for profit or trade making, offering, distributing, exhibiting or importing infringing copies or making or having in possession infringing plates with penalty of a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or in case of a second offense, imprisonment not exceeding two months, as also destruction or delivery up to owner of the copyright. The summary provisions of the musical copyright acts of 1902 and 1906 remain unrepealed.
Under previous law there had been two notable cases of criminal punishment for conspiracy. In 1906, Re Willets against a combination among cheap music publishers, where the Common Serjeant sentenced the vendors to nine months' imprisonment, and in 1910, Re Bokenham, where pirates who had conspired to print surreptitiously obtained copies of Oscar Wilde's poem “De Profundis," were also sentenced to six months and lesser periods.