Mifflin v. Dutton

190 U.S. 265, 23 S. Ct. 771, 47 L. Ed. 1043, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1392
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 1, 1903
Docket267
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 190 U.S. 265 (Mifflin v. Dutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265, 23 S. Ct. 771, 47 L. Ed. 1043, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1392 (1903).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

As the first twenty-nine chapters of “ The Minister’s Wooing” appeared in the Atlantic Monthly before any steps whatever were taken, either by the publishers or by Mrs. Stowe, to obtain a copyright, it follows that they, at least, became public property»

Mrs. Stowe’s copyright of the last thirteen chapters would doubtless have been valid but for the fact that they subsequently appeared in the November and December numbers of the Atlantic Monthly without notice of such copyrights As we have already held that the copyright of the Atlantic Monthly by Ticknor & Fields did not operate as notice of the rights of the author to any article therein appearing, it follows from the case just decided that the appearance of the last thirteen chapters in the Atlantic Monthly vitiated the copyright under section five, which provides that no.person shall be entitled to the benefit of the act unless he shall give information of his copyright by causing to be inserted in the several copies of each and every edition published during the term secured a notice of such copyright.

It is exceedingly unfortunate that, with the pains taken by • the authors of these works to protect themselves against republication, they should have failed in accomplishing their object ; but the right being purely statutory, we see no escape from the conclusion that, unless the substance as well as the form of the statute be disregarded, the right has been lost in . both of these cases.

The decree in this case is also

Affirmed,

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

Related

Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Regent Baby Products Corp.
355 F. Supp. 438 (E.D. New York, 1972)
Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc.
425 F.2d 397 (Second Circuit, 1970)
DeSilva Construction Corp. v. Herrald
213 F. Supp. 184 (M.D. Florida, 1962)
Wrench v. Universal Pictures Co.
104 F. Supp. 374 (S.D. New York, 1952)
Leigh v. Gerber
86 F. Supp. 320 (S.D. New York, 1949)
Deward & Rich v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corporation
120 F.2d 537 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)
Sieff v. Continental Auto Supply, Inc.
39 F. Supp. 683 (D. Minnesota, 1941)
Deward & Rich v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corporation
34 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Virginia, 1940)
McDaniel v. Friedman
98 F.2d 745 (Seventh Circuit, 1938)
West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co.
176 F. 833 (Second Circuit, 1910)
Dam v. Kirk La Shelle Co.
175 F. 902 (Second Circuit, 1910)
Record & Guide Co. v. Bromley
175 F. 156 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1909)
West Publishing Co. v. Edward Thompson Co.
169 F. 833 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1909)
Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co.
157 F. 186 (Seventh Circuit, 1907)
Harper v. Donohue
144 F. 491 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 U.S. 265, 23 S. Ct. 771, 47 L. Ed. 1043, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mifflin-v-dutton-scotus-1903.