Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

equity for alleged infringement of musical copyright does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that

1. The Convention to which the United States of America and the Dominican Republic are parties as alleged in Paragraph “Seventh" of the bill of complaint does not extend to authors protection in the field of mechancial reproduction as in the form of phonograph records.

2. The bill of complaint does not allege facts showing that the steps required by the laws of the Dominican Republic in securing copyright and registering claim thereto have been duly taken and that statutory requirements have been fully complied with.

3. The bill of complaint does not allege facts showing that there appears in the alleged copyrighted work a statement that indicates the reservation of the alleged property right, and on the further ground that the bill of complaint fails to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules adopted by the Supreme Court of the U. S. for practice and procedure under the copyright laws, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: “A copy of the alleged infringement of copyright, if actually made, and a copy of the work alleged to be infringed, should accompany the petition, or its absence be explained.”

COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH COMPANY, INC.,
By (Sgnd) HERBERT A. HUEBNER,

Attorney for Defendant,
Office and P. O. Address, 1776 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, City of

New York.
Of Counsel:
JOSEPH E. McMahon. (Signd.)
(Joseph E. McMahon),

1776 Broadway, New York, N. Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Juan Luis Portuondo, plaintiff, against Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., and

Pedro Flores, defendants. Equity

AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, complaining of the defendant, by LEON A. BRODY, his attorney' respectfully alleges:

FIRST. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned plaintiff's assignor, PORFIRIO GOLIBART, was and still is a citizen of the Dominican Republic.

SECOND. That the plaintiff is a resident of the City, County, and Southern District of New York.

THIRD. Upon information and belief that the defendant, PEDROS FLORES, is a citizen and resident of the City, County, and Southern District of New York.

FOURTH. That the defendant, COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH COMPANY, INC., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place for the transaction of business in the City, State, and Southern District of New York.

Fifth. That in 1928 plaintiff's assignor composed a musical composition entitled “Fellita”; that a copy of the said musical composition is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.

Sixth. That on cr abcut August 6th, 1928, plaintiff's assignor duly procured the said composition to be copyrighted in the cffice of the Secreiary of State of the Public Education and Fine Arts of the Dominican Republic... A copy of the certificate of registration of said copyright, marked “Exhibit B," is attached hereto and made a part hereof; that all the steps required by tłe laws of the Dominican Republic in securing the copyright to the said song ard registering claim thereto have been duly taken and that the statutory requirements have been duly complied with; that in the said song, as copyrighted and registered, there appeared a statement indicating the reservation of the property right.

SEVENTH. That the United States of America and the Dcmincian Republic are parties to a Convention concerning Literary and Artistic Copyright signed at Buenos Aires, August 11th, 1910; that Article 2nd of the said Convention provides that musical compositions with or without words include all productions that can be published by any means of impression or reproduction; that the following countries are also parties to the said Convention: Argentine Republic, Brazil,

[ocr errors]

*

*

[ocr errors]

Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Eighth. That Article 3rd of the said convention provides:

“The acknowledgment of a copyright obtained in one State, in conformity with its laws, shall produce its effects of full right, in all the other States, without the necessity of complying with any other formality

Ninth. That the defendants with full knowledge of the rights of plaintiff's assignor in said musical composition in or about 1935 and thereafter unlawfully published and caused to be published and placed on the market for sale in various stores and elsewhere in the City of New York, United States of America and foreign countries, a musical composition “Carmelita” and mechanical reproductions thereof; that said musical composition is taken and copied from "Fellita,” the aforementioned composition of plaintiff's assignor.

TENTH. That the said publication and sale by the defendants was and is without the consent and authority of the plaintiff or his assignor; that by reason of the foregoing wrongful acts of the defendants, the plaintiff's assignor has suffered great damage. That the defendant PEDRO FLORES claims to be the composer of the said composition “Carmelita” and has received and is receiving royalties and benefits for its use; that the said PEDRO FLORES has performed and is performing said composition over the radio and on phonograph records; that the defendant, COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH COMPANY, INC., has manufactured and sold and is at present manufacturing and selling phonographic reproductions of the said composition in the City and State of New York, the United States of America, foreign countries and particularly through North America and South America, including those countries which are signatory to the convention above-mentioned.

ELEVENTH. That the publication and sale of the said composition and mechanical reproductions thereof is in contravention of the rights of the plaintiff and his assignor and has caused and will cause irreparable damages for which he has no adequate remedy at law.

TWELFTH. That prior to the commencement of this action PORFIRIO GOLIBART duly assigned to the plaintiff all his rights in the premises.

THIRTEENTH. That the plaintiff's damages cannot be computed without an accounting.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment that the defendants, their agents, employees and all persons under their control be forever restrained and enjoined from manufacturing, publishing, selling or in any manner distributing the said musical composition entitled "Carmelita” or any other composition which is a colorable imitation of any substantial part of the composition of plaintiff's assignor; that the defendants account to the plaintiff for any and all damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the acts aforesaid and that the defendants pay said damages to the plaintiff; that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action; and that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as may be proper.

LEON A. BRODY,

Attorney for Plaintiff, Office and Post Office Address, 1501 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan,

City of New York.

STATE OF NEW YORK,

County of New York, ss: Juan Luis PORTUONDO, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the plaintiff in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Amended Bill of Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true.

(Sgnd.) Juan Luis PORTUONDO. Sworn to before me this 3rd day of March, 1937. (SEAL)

(Sgnd.) INNOCENTE COLMENARES,

Notary Public, New York County,

Clerks No. 135, Registers No. 7-C-334. Commission expires March 30, 1937.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

STATE SECRETARIAT OF Public EDUCATION AND FINE ARTS This certifies that there is enrolled in the registry of Artistic and Literary property under date of August 6th, 1928, number 62, folios 6 and 7, a musical work entitled "Fellita," the author of which is Mr. Porfirio Golibart.

At the request of an interested party that presents are issued in Santo Domingo, D. D., the 26th day of November 1935. (SEAL)

(Sgnd.) MANUEL REYES,

(Manuel Reyes.) Temporary Chief Clerk of the State Secretariat of Public Education and

Fine Arts. Approved:

(Sgnd.) R. EMILIO JIMINEZ,

(R. Emilio Jiminez.) State Secretary of Public Education and Fine Arts.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

Juan Luis Portuondo, plaintiff, vs. Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., and

Pedro Flores, defendants. May 13, 1937 CoxE, D. J.: The Buenos Aires copyright convention of 1910 (U. S. Stats., Vol. 38, p. 1785) provides in Article 6th that “authors or their assigns

shall enjoy in the signatory countries the rights that the respective laws accord.” The plaintiff, therefore, must look to our copyright laws for the enforcement of his rights in this country. Under Sections 1 (e) and 8 (b) of the Copyright Law (U. S. C. A. Title 17, Sec. 1, 8) protection against mechanical reproduction is denied unless substantially similar protection is accorded United States citizens, and it is expressly provided that the existence of these reciprocal conditions shall be determined by the President “by proclamation made from time to time." In construing these sections, the Attorney General has ruled that there must be a separate proclamation of the existence of reciprocal conditions as to mechanical reproduction (29 op. Atty. Gen'l. p. 64). In the absence of such a proclamation, the plaintiff cannot avail himself of our copyright laws, and the complaint is fatally defective in not alleging affirmatively that a proclamation to that effect was made.

This disposition makes it unnecessary to decide the other questions raised by the motion.

The motion of the defendant, Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint is granted.

(Sgd.) ALFRED C. CoxE, U. S. D. J.

OFFICIAL OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ADVISING THE PRESIDENT AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES

COPYRIGHT LAW Rights OF ALIEN AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS The provision at the end of section 8 of the copyright act of March 1,

1909 (35 Stat. 1077), which requires the President to determine by proclamation the existence of the reciprocal conditions upon which alien authors and composers may acquire the general privileges under said act, applies equally to the reciprocal condition specified in the proviso to section 1 (e) of that act, upon which an alien may acquire the right of controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically a musical work. Where a German citizen has complied with all the general provisions of

the copyright act at any time subsequent to July 1, 1909, the date upon which the act became effective, there was vested in him, the rights and privileges set forth in said act, except the right specified in section 1 (e), as Germany had at that time complied with one or more of the conditions enumerated in section 8, subsection (b).

A German citizen who has strictly complied with the provisions of the

copyright act at any time between July 1, 1909, the date upon which the law became effective, and April 9, 1910, the date of the proclamation of the President declaring that the citizens of Germany were entitled to the general privileges of that act, is not only vested with a copyright in his work or composition, but he may maintain an action for any infringement which occurred between said dates. With reference to an infringement of the particular right specified in the

proviso to section 1 (e) between September 9, 1910, and December 8, 1910, the same principle must apply; but as the proclamation of the President does not recite that this condition had been met prior to the date of the proclamation it would not afford evidence sufficient to

sustain an action for infringement between said dates. A German citizen could not acquire the right specified in the proviso to

section 1 (e) of said act prior to September 9, 1910, the date upon which the reciprocal condition provided for therein was complied with by Germany.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 6, 1911. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your communication of March 3, 1911, in which you propound a number of questions relating to the rights that may be acquired by alien authors and composers under the copyright law of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1075). While some of these questions are entirely abstract, yet I think that answers to them all will appear from the conclusions reached with reference to the rights of citizens of Germany whose copyright laws and the proclamations of the President relating thereto are as follows:

The laws of the German Government have complied with one of the reciprocal conditions mentioned in section 8, subsection (b) of the copyright act ever since that act went into effect on July 1, 1909, and that country was among those included in the proclamation of the President, made April 9, 1910, which declared that the citizens of the countries mentioned therein were entitled to the privileges of the copyright law as of July 1, 1909. However, the reciprocal condition as to music, provided in section 1 (e), was not complied with by Germany until September 9, 1910, and the proclamation of the President declaring that this condition had been met was issued December 8, 1910. This proclamation recited that satisfactory official assurance had been given that Ġermany “now permits to citizens of the United States similar rights to those accorded in section 1 (e) of the act of March 4, 1909,” but did not mention the date upon which such similar rights were granted.

The questions presented by this state of facts are:

1. Is it the duty of the President to determine by proclamation the existence of the reciprocal condition specified in the proviso of section 1 (e).

2. What rights, if any, could a German citizen, who was a nonresident of the United States acquire under the general provisions of the copyright law between July 1, 1909, the date upon which the copyright act of March 4, 1909, became effective, and April 9, 1910, the date of the proclamation of the President declaring that the citizens of Germany were entitled to the general privileges of that act.

3. What rights, if any, could such German citizen acquire under the special provision in section 1 (e) between September 9, 1910, the date upon which the reciprocal condition provided for therein was complied with by Germany, and December 8, 1910, the date of the proclamation issued by the President declaring such fact; and

4. Could a citizen of Germany acquire the right specified in the proviso to section 1 (e) prior to September 9, 1910.

The general provisions of the act relating to the privileges of alien authors and composers to secure copyrights of their works in the United States are contained in section 8 of the act, which reads as follows:

“That the author or proprietor of any work made the subject of copyright by this act, or his executors, administrators, or assigns, shall have copyright for such work under the conditions and for the terms specified in this act: Provided, however, That the copyright secured by this act shall extend to the work of an author or proprietor who is a citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation only;

“(a) When an alien author or proprietor shall be domiciled within the United States at the time of the first publication of his work; or

(b) When the foreign state or nation of which such author is a citizen or subject, grants, either by treaty, convention, agreement, or law, to citizens of the United States the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens, or copyright protection substantially equal to the protection secured to such foreign author under this act or by treaty; or when such foreign state or nation is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright by the terms of which agreement the United States may, at its pleasure, become a party thereto.

"The existence of the reciprocal conditions aforesaid shall be determined by the President of the United States, by proclamation made from time to time, as the purposes of this act may require.

The first section of the act provides that:

"Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this act, shall have the exclusive right.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

(e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition and for the purpose of public performance for profit; and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record in which the thought of an author may be recorded and from which it may be read or reproduced: Provided, That the provisions of this act, so far as they secure copyright controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work, shall include only compositions published and copyrighted after this act goes into effect, and shall not include the works of a foreign author or composer unless the foreign state or nation of which such author or composer is a citizen of subject grants, either by treaty, convention, agreement, or law, to citizens of the United States similar rights.

Does the provision at the end of section 8, requiring the President to determine the “reciprocal conditions aforesaid,” by proclamation, apply to the restriction upon aliens contained in section 1 (e) ?

This presents another of the many difficult questions of construction which have arisen in the enforcement of this act. It must be conceded that this provision is remote from section 1 (e), that it relates directly to the preceding provisions in section 8 and that it contains nothing which necessarily requires its extension to the condition expressed in section 1°(e). However, here, as in every question of statutory construction, it is necessary to consider all parts of the act relating to the subject under consideration, and to determine therefrom as nearly as possible the legislative intent. That there is a close relationship in the subject matter of section 1 (e) and of the proviso to section 8, is apparent. The latter relates to the conditions upon which an alien may acquire the general privileges under the act, while the former specifies a particular condition upon which an alien may acquire the right of controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically a musical work. This condition is in a way dependent upon the conditions set forth in section 8, inasmuch as it may be complied with, and yet the right to control the parts of the instruments mentioned could not be acquired unless some one of the conditions prescribed in the latter section is also met; that is, the condition relating to this particular matter is added to those set fort in secti 8. It is reciprocal in its nature, just as those in class (6) of section 8 are reciprocal. Every reason which prompted the insertion of the clause in section & relating to the proclamation by the President, applies equally to the proviso in section 1 (e). Without the specification of some method by which it may be determined whether the laws of a foreign country comply with this particular condition, the general public could possess no adequate knowledge as to whether a copyright of a musical composition carried with it the protection of the right declared therein, and the proof of such right in actions for infringement would often be uncertain and difficult to obtain.

There can be but little doubt that Congress intended that the requirement that the existence of “the reciprocal conditions aforesaid” shall be determined by the President of the United States, should apply to the reciprocal requirements specified in section 1 (e), and that it was not there expressed because it was assumed that the language of the concluding clause of section 8 implied that all reciprocal conditions upon which the right of foreign authors or composers depend, should be determined and proclaimed by the President.

I hold, therefore, that it is the duty of the President to determine and proclaim what foreign countries grant to the citizens of the United States rights similar to those specified in the provisions of section 1 (e).

The remaining questions may be discussed and determined together.

In an opinion transmitted to you from this department on March 19, 1910 (28 Op. 222, 226), with reference to whether a proclamation of the President issued under section 8 of this statute might be made retroactive, it was said:

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »