Clayton v. Stone
This text of 5 F. Cas. 999 (Clayton v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Copyright ■was formerly considered to be founded on common law, but it can now only be viewed as part of our statute law. Gods. Pat. S, A book within the statute need not be a book in the common and ordinary acceptation of the word, viz., a volume made up ■of several sheets bound together; it may be printed only on one sheet, as the words of a song or the music accompanying it. Id. 21S.
The requisites to secure copyright under our act are: The author, before publication, must deposit a printed copy of the title of the map, chart or book in the district clerk’s office, which must be recorded, a copy of the record to be printed on title page, and within two months thereafter cause such record to be published in one or more newspapers printed in the United States for the space of four weeks, and within six months after publishing the book cause to be delivered a copy. 2 Kent, Comm. 306.2
I am inclined to think the price-current cannot be considered a book within the sense and meaning of the act of congress. The literary property intended to be protected by the act is not to be determined by the size, form or shape in which it makes its appearance, but by the subject-matter of the work. Nor is this question to be determined by reference to lexicographers, to ascertain the origin and meaning of the word book. It will be more satisfactory to inquire into the general scope and object of the legislature, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense in which the word “book” was intended to be used in the statute.
It seems to be well settled in England, that a literary production, to be entitled to the protection of the statute on copyrights, need not be a book in the common and ordinary acceptation of the word — a volume, written or printed, made up of several sheets and bound together. It may be printed on one sheet, as the words of a song or the [1001]*1001xxmsic accompanying it. 11 East, 244, note; 2 Camp. 27, note. It is true that the English statute of 8 Anne, in the preamble, speaks of books and other writings; but the body of the act speaks only of books, the same as in the act of congress; and a [1002]*1002learned commentator upon American law (2 Kent, Comm. 311) seems to think the English decisions on this subject (Cowp. 623; 11 East, 241, note) have been given upon the body of the statute of Anne, without laying any stress upon the words other writ-[1003]*1003mgs in the preamble. In determining the true construction to be given to the act of congress, it is proper to look at the constitution of the United States, to aid us in ascertaining the nature of the property intended to be protected. Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. Section S, art. 1, Const. U. S. The act in question was passed in execution of the power here given, and the object, therefore, was the promotion of science; and it would certainly be a pretty extraordinary view of the sciences to consider a daily or weekly publication of the state of the market as falling within any class of them. They are of a more fixed, permanent and durable character. The term science cannot, with any propriety, be applied to a work of so fluctuating and fugitive a form as that of a newspaper or price-current, the subject-matter of which is daily changing, and is of mere temporary use. Although great praise may be due to the plaintiffs for their industry and enterprise in publishing this paper, yet the law does not contemplate their being rewarded in this way; it must seek patronage and protection from its utility to the public and not as a work of science. The title of the act of congress is for the encouragement of learning (2 Bior. & D. Laws, 104 [1 Stat 124]), and was not intended for the encouragement of mere industry, unconnected with learning and the sciences. The preliminary steps required by law, to secure the copyright, cannot reasonably be applied to a work of so ephemeral a character as that of a newspaper. The author is required to deposit a printed copy of the title of his book in the clerk’s office of the district court, and the clerk is required to record the same, a copy of which record must be published for four weeks in' one or more newspapers within two months from the date thereof; and a copy of the book is to be delivered to the secretary of state within six months from the publication, to be preserved in his office; and all this would have to be done for every newspaper. The right cannot be secured for any given time, for the series of papers published from day to day or week to week; and it is so improbable that any publisher of a newspaper would go through this form for every paper, it cannot reasonably be presumed that congress intended to include newspapers under the term book. That no such pretence has ever before been set up, either in England or in this country, affords a pretty strong argument that such publications were never considered as falling under the protection of the copyright laws. We are, accordingly, of opinion that the paper in question is not a book, the copyright to which can be secured under the act of congress. Judgment must, accordingly, be entered for the defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 F. Cas. 999, 2 Paine 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-stone-circtsdny-1829.