Opinion of the Court.

"American Publishers' Association.

210 U.S.

190-.

"In consideration of discount allowed on books bought from we hereby agree that for one year from date of publication we will not sell net books at less than the retail prices fixed by the respective publishers, nor fiction published after February 1, 1902, at a greater discount than twentyeight per cent at retail, as provided by the rules of the American Publishers' Association. We further agree that we will not sell books published by members of the American Publishers' Association to any dealer known to us to cut prices of net books or of new fiction, except as above provided."

The new publisher was required to execute this pledge before deliveries were made, although if dealers refused to sign the trade was still allowed to sell to them and would sell to them. If a new member made application for books, such application was referred to the association, and the agreement executed before deliveries were made.

Macy & Company refused to enter the association or to be bound by its rules. They sold books at less than the prices fixed by the association, and bought books from other dealers, including publications of complainants, and sold them at less prices than those fixed by the association. And they purchased from dealers who knew that Macy & Company intended to sell at such prices.

Upon the theory that Macy & Company had notice of these agreements, it was sought to hold them as copyright infringers. Both the Circuit Court (139 Fed. Rep. 193) and the Court of Appeals (147 Fed. Rep. 28) held that there was nothing in any of the notices of a claim of right or reservation under the copyright law, and held that the question was one of the right of the complainants to relief in a court of equity by virtue of their rights, independent of statutory copyright, in view of the alleged conditional sale embodied in the notice as to the copyrighted book. The Circuit Court of Appeals held, rightfully as we think, that this question was not open in the case,

as in the first case there was no diversity of citizenship, nor in either case a claim of damages in the sum of $2,000, requisite to confer jurisdiction of questions of rights independent of the copyright statutes.

Upon the allegations of the bill as to alleged contributory infringement of the copyright, that the defendant had induced and persuaded sundry jobbers and dealers who had obtained copyrighted books from the complainants to deliver the same to the defendant for sale at retail at less than the prices fixed by the complainants, and in violation of the agreement upon which the books were obtained, both the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was no satisfactory proof that the defendant did thus induce any person to break his agreement with the complainants. It is contended in the brief of the complainants that these findings are opposed to the weight of the testimony, and particularly violate the admissions of the answer, but we think, taking the answer altogether, it did deny the allegations of the complaint as to the conduct of the defendant in inducing dealers to violate their agreements.

Upon the question of fact involved in this branch of the case both courts below found against the contention of the complainants in this respect, and, applying the usual rule in such cases, we find no occasion to disturb such findings.

The decrees of the Circuit Court of Appeals in both cases are

Affirmed.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

210 U.S.

GLOBE NEWSPAPER COMPANY v. WALKER.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 210. Argued April 23, 1908.-Decided June 1, 1908.

The right of an author in the United States to multiply copies of his works after publication is the creation of a new right by Federal statute under constitutional authority and not a continuation of a common-law right. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 590.

While a general liability or right created by statute without a remedy may be enforced by an appropriate common-law action, when a special remedy is coupled therewith that remedy is exclusive. Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520. Although remedies given by a statute to protect property in copyright may be inadequate for the purpose intended, the courts cannot enlarge the remedy. Congress alone has power so to do by amending the statute. Congress having by §§ 4965-4970, Rev. Stat., provided a remedy for those whose copyrights in maps are infringed, a civil action at common law for money damages cannot be maintained against the infringers. 140 Fed. Rep. 305, reversed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William Quinby for plaintiff in error:

The common-law rights of authors run only to publication; thereafter their sole protection is under the copyright statute. A copyright cannot be maintained as a right existing at common law, but depends wholly upon the copyright statutes. All common-law rights of authors are superseded by the copyright statute after copyright. Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Rep. 143; S. C., 128 U. S. 244, 252; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters, 591, 662, 663; aff'd and followed in Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 82, 85; Werckmeister v. American Lithographic Co., 134 Fed. Rep. 321; Palmer v. DeWitt, 47 N. Y. 532, 536; Jewellers Mercantile Agency v. Jewellers Weekly Publishing Co., 155 N. Y. 241. The copyright act provides no remedy by a civil action

210 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

either at law or in equity for damages on behalf of the owner of a copyright of a map. Section 4965, Rev. Stat., Forfeiture; Thornton v. Schreiber, 124 U. S. 612, 614; MacGillivray, Copyrights, 290; Chapman v. Ferry, 12 Fed. Rep. 693; Sarony v. Ehrich, 28 Fed. Rep. 79.

The sole and only remedy provided by § 4965 for the infringement of a copyrighted "map" is the forfeiture to the owner of the copyright of infringing copies and one dollar for each copy found, etc. Section 4970 gives to the owner of a copyrighted map in common with owners of other classes of copyrighted property a remedy by injunction.

The owner of a cut or a map cannot avail himself of the remedies, damages and forfeitures for copies sold or offered for sale, provided for a book or a painting. Bennett v. Boston Traveler, 101 Fed. Rep. 445; maps may be copyrighted as an atlas or book. Black v. Allen, 42 Fed. Rep. 618, 625 (1890), Shipman, J.

A general liability created by statute, without a remedy, may be enforced by an appropriate common-law action, but where the provision for the liability is coupled with the provision for a special remedy, that remedy, and that alone, must be employed. Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520; Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238; Fourth National Bank of New York v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747.

The rule applied by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case at bar is in direct conflict with previous cases. See Sarony v. Ehrich, 28 Fed. Rep. 79, 80; Bennett v. Boston Traveler Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 445.

The right of the defendant in error being a statutory right, the rule as stated in Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520, 526, 527; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238, controls and said rule is in no way modified by the decision in Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, 17, relied on by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Argument for Defendants in Error.

210 U. S.

Mr. H. L. Boutwell, with whom Mr. A. W. Levensaler was on the brief, for defendants in error:

Original and exclusive jurisdiction in copyright and patent cases is vested in the Circuit Courts of the United States. Rev. Stat. § 629, par. 9; Rev. Stat. § 711, par. 5; see also Walker v. Globe Newspaper Co., 140 Fed. Rep. 305, 315; Drone on Copyright, p. 546; Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co., 143 Fed. Rep. 329; Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co., 100 Fed. Rep. 77, 79; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 291; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205.

Where a right, previously existing by the common law, is secured by a statute which provides no remedy for its protection, the common-law remedies are available, and where the statute prescribes penalties and forfeitures, but does not provide a remedy for damages, the common-law action for damages will lie. This rule has been applied in the interpretation of copyright statutes. Drone on Copyright, 473, 493; Sutherland on Stat. Const. 509; 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2 ed.), 592-593; Curtis on Copyright, 313; Copinger, Law of Copyright, 247-252; Slater on Copyright, 168, 169. See also Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 620; Thompson v. Symonds, 5 T. R. 41; Cadell v. Robertson, Paton's Appeal Cases, vol. 5, p. 493; Roworth v. Wilkes, 1 Camp. 94.

The plaintiff in error published a copy of the map of the defendants in error in a single issue of its paper. Immediately upon publication substantially the whole issue was distributed. When the infringement was brought to the attention of the defendants in error no substantial number of copies could be found in the possession of the plaintiff in error. Equity furnished no relief, for the purpose of the plaintiff in error had been accomplished. If this action cannot be maintained, then a copyright of a map affords the map-makers of this country no protection as against the publishers of newspapers. Are the defendants in error without a remedy?

That the law confers

it is a maxim of the law.

no right without a remedy to secure Beckford v.

Beckford v. Hood, supra; 11 Ency. of