Funkhouser v. Loew's, Inc.

208 F.2d 185
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided January 5, 1954·No. 14798_1·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

Clifford Funkhouser brought this action for infringement and plagiarism in the United States District Court against Loew’s, Inc., seeking to recover damages in excess of $2,000,000. He alleged that defendant’s motion picture photoplay, “The Harvey Girls”, infringed upon and was copied from two literary compositions belonging to plaintiff, his copyrighted work entitled “Cupid Rides the Rails” and his unpublished manuscript “Old John Santa Fe”. Defendant denied that it had copied from plaintiff’s works and alleged that the dramatization of the motion picture play “The Harvey Girls” was produced by it from an original literary composition owned by defendant. After a lengthy trial to the court in which an estimated 500,000 words were received in evidence in the form of testimony, depositions, manuscripts, novels, magazine publications, etc., the court found “upon a fair comparison of the respective works of plaintiff and defendant under applicable rules of law that no substantial or material parts of plaintiff’s literary material are copied in [defendant’s] photoplay”, and entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

He contends that the trial court erred (1) in failing to find that appellee’s motion picture “The Harvey Girls” was an infringement of appellant’s works; (2) in finding that, although appellee had access to appellant’s works, it did not copy such works; (3) in finding that appellant’s story, “Cupid Rides the Rails”, was based upon historical data; that appellant intended to dramatize the Santa Fe Railroad and not the Harvey girls in his stories; and that the subjects treated in appellant’s works are in the public domain and therefore no one has the exclusive use of them; (4) in failing to find that plaintiff’s stories were entirely original; and (5) in failing to find that appellant was entitled to damages for infringement.

All of the alleged errors are directed toward the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the trial court, and charge, in effect, that the findings are not supported by the evidence. It is important to note that defendant’s evidence was presented exclusively by depositions and that the verbal testimony on the part of plaintiff, which was directed mainly toward proving access, was not substantially controverted. The greater portion of the evidence consisted of the manuscripts, novels, and the movie itself, and determination of the action for infringement was sought upon a comparison of the plaintiff’s works and the alleged offending vehicle. The trial court recognized that there were some matters as to which there was some general similarity between plaintiff’s literary compositions and defendant’s movie but the trial court was convinced no copying had been done by any one who had anything to do with the composition and production of the movie sufficient to constitute infringement.

The plaintiff was a former “boomer” (an itinerant railroad worker) of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company. He also had some experience in newspaper work and had written several short stories for publication. In 1939, he collaborated with Lyman Anson in writing a story which they called “Cupid Rides the Rails”. This story concerned railroad life and the activities of the boomers. The setting for the story was in a southwestern desert town called LaNada. In the story a new Fred Harvey eating house is being opened in LaNada and a group of Harvey Girls (waitresses who work in the Harvey Houses) arrive to take up their duties. Throughout the story the Harvey Girls, who are favorably presented, supply a romantic touch because, according to a popular boomer slogan of the time, “there were no ladies west of Dodge City — No women west of Albuquerque.” Plaintiff and Anson succeeded in selling *187 their story, “Cupid Rides the Railsto the American Mercury magazine, which published it in its September, 1940, issue under the same title. American Mercury secured a copyright of the story and assigned the same to plaintiff and Anson. Anson later sold his interest under the copyright to plaintiff and is not a party to this action. A condensation of the story appeared in the November, 1940, issue of Readers Digest under the title, “Fred Harvey Girls — Civilizers of the Southwest”, which appellant claims to have suggested. The representatives of the Harvey family and the Harvey company were pleased with this favorable publicity and Paramount Pictures became interested in the story as material for a future motion picture. Plaintiff and Anson met with representatives of the Fred Harvey Restaurant System and the Santa Fe Railroad and discussed the possibilities of a movie based on the story. They wrote a manuscript of this story for movie purposes and changed the title to “Old John Santa Fe”. Copies of “Old John Santa Fe” were sent to the Harvey people and the Santa Fe Railroad and also to appellant’s agent in New York, who in turn submitted them to Paramount Pictures and appellee. Appellee’s New York office prepared a synopsis of “Old John Santa Fe” and forwarded it to California for examination and recommendation by its movie script writers. Defendant and Paramount Pictures both rejected the story. Whether the copies of the manuscript were returned to appellant is uncertain under the evidence. At any rate, defendant retained the synopsis of the story made by its New York office and copies of the manuscript were retained by the Harvey representatives and the Santa Fe Railroad Company. There was no doubt that officers and agents of defendant had had access to plaintiff’s compositions.

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

Funkhouser v. Loew's, Inc., 208 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1954).

208 F.2d 185 (Funkhouser v. Loew's, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cy Wakeman, Inc. v. Nicole Price Consulting, LLC
284 F. Supp. 3d 985 (D. Nebraska, 2018)
McMahon v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
486 F. Supp. 1296 (E.D. Missouri, 1980)
Midas Productions, Inc. v. Baer
437 F. Supp. 1388 (C.D. California, 1977)
Fuld v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
390 F. Supp. 877 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Leeds Music Limited v. Robin
358 F. Supp. 650 (S.D. Ohio, 1973)
Turner v. Century House Publishing Co.
56 Misc. 2d 1071 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Lapsley v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
246 F. Supp. 389 (District of Columbia, 1965)
Life Music, Inc. v. Wonderland Music Company
241 F. Supp. 653 (S.D. New York, 1965)
Davis v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
240 F. Supp. 612 (S.D. New York, 1965)
Morris v. Wilson
189 F. Supp. 565 (S.D. New York, 1960)
West v. Lind
186 Cal. App. 2d 563 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Bradbury v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
174 F. Supp. 733 (S.D. California, 1959)
Tralins v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
160 F. Supp. 511 (D. Maryland, 1958)
Costello v. Loew's Incorporated
159 F. Supp. 782 (District of Columbia, 1958)
O'BRIEN v. Chappel & Co.
159 F. Supp. 58 (S.D. New York, 1958)
Greenbie v. Noble
151 F. Supp. 45 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Lake v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
140 F. Supp. 707 (S.D. California, 1956)