Collier v. Imp Films Co.

S.D. New York

Collier v. Imp Films Co.

214 F. 272, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1900

DecidedJanuary 28, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F. 272 (Collier v. Imp Films Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collier v. Imp Films Co., 214 F. 272, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1900 (S.D.N.Y. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

The substantial ground of the demurrer is that the complainant is not entitled to restrain the infringement of the copyright of the dramatic composition entitled “A White Slave’s Love,” because the author after taking out such copyright adopted a new title, “The Undertow,” and thereafter assigned the work to the complainant, who produced it under the latter name.

There would be force in this contention, if it appeared that the defendant had acted without notice. I am not satisfied that an author can copyright a play under one title, produce it under another, and hold as an infringer a person who has been misled by his action. But I am not called upon to determine that question, as it does not arise upon these pleadings. The bill avers that the defendant produced the complainant’s work with full knowledge of all the facts. As to such a person I think it clear that an author or his assignee does not forfeit a copyright by a change of the title of the work. I also think that the use of the work by the'defendant is sufficiently averred.

The demurrer to the bill is overruled, with costs, and the defendant is assigned to answer at the next rule day.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

The substantial ground of the demurrer is that the complainant is not entitled to restrain the infringement of the copyright of the dramatic composition entitled “A White Slave’s Love,” because the author after taking out such copyright adopted a new title, “The Undertow,” and thereafter assigned the work to the complainant, who produced it under the latter name.

There would be force in this contention, if it appeared that the defendant had acted without notice. I am not satisfied that an author can copyright a play under one title, produce it under another, and hold as an infringer a person who has been misled by his action. But I am not called upon to determine that question, as it does not arise upon these pleadings. The bill avers that the defendant produced the complainant’s work with full knowledge of all the facts. As to such a person I think it clear that an author or his assignee does not forfeit a copyright by a change of the title of the work. I also think that the use of the work by the'defendant is sufficiently averred.

The demurrer to the bill is overruled, with costs, and the defendant is assigned to answer at the next rule day.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F. 272, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-imp-films-co-nysd-1913.