Falk v. T. P. Howell & Co.

37 F. 202, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided December 20, 1888·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Coxe, J.

Since the decision of the supreme court in Burrow-Giles Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279, there can be no doubt that a photograph which has the artistic merits possessed by the complainant’s photograph is the subject of a copyright. The only question is, do the defendants infringe? That their design is copied directly from the copyrighted photograph is not denied, but it is urged that infringement is avoided, because it is larger than the photograph, and is stamped .on leather, and is intended for the bottom or back of a. chair. It is thought that this proposition cannot be maintained. Differences which relate merely to size and material are not important. They may affect the question of damages, but not the question of infringement. The complainant is-entitled to the usual decree.

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

Falk v. T. P. Howell & Co., 37 F. 202, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738 (circtsdny 1888).

37 F. 202 (Falk v. T. P. Howell & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rogers v. Koons
751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D. New York, 1990)
Walco Products, Inc. v. Kittay & Blitz, Inc.
354 F. Supp. 121 (S.D. New York, 1972)
Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc.
295 F. Supp. 331 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Loew's Incorporated v. Columbia Broadcasting System
131 F. Supp. 165 (S.D. California, 1955)
Jones Bros. Co. v. Underkoffler
16 F. Supp. 729 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)
King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer
299 F. 533 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Bracken v. Rosenthal
151 F. 136 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1907)
National Cash Register Co. v. Grobet
148 F. 385 (S.D. New York, 1906)
Morrison v. Pettibone
87 F. 330 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1897)