Portuondo v. Columbia Phonograph Co.

S.D. New York

Portuondo v. Columbia Phonograph Co.

81 F. Supp. 355, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2204

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 13, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 F. Supp. 355 (Portuondo v. Columbia Phonograph 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

Portuondo v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 81 F. Supp. 355, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2204 (S.D.N.Y. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

The Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of Aug. 11, 1910, U.S. Stats., Vol. 38, p. 1785, provides in Article 6th that “authors or their assigns * * * shall enjoy in the signatory countries the rights that the respective laws accord”. The plaintiff, therefore, must look to our copyright laws for the enforcement of his rights in this country. Under Sections 1(e) and 8(b) of the Copyright Law, U.S. C.A., Title 17, §§ 1(e), 8(b), protection against mechanical' reproduction is denied unless substantially similar protection is accorded to United States citizens; and it is expressly provided that the existence of these reciprocal conditions shall be determined by the President “by proclamation made from time to time”. In construing these sections, the Attorney General has ruled that there must be a separate proclamation of the existence of reciprocal conditions as to mechanical reproduction (29 Op. Atty. Gen. p. 64). In the absence of such a proclamation, the plaintiff cannot avail himself of our -copyright laws; *356 and the complaint is fatally defective in not alleging affirmatively that a proclamation to that effect was made. This disposition makes it unnecessary to decide the other questions raised by the motion.

The motion of the defendant, Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. .

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

COXE, District Judge.

The Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of Aug. 11, 1910, U.S. Stats., Vol. 38, p. 1785, provides in Article 6th that “authors or their assigns * * * shall enjoy in the signatory countries the rights that the respective laws accord”. The plaintiff, therefore, must look to our copyright laws for the enforcement of his rights in this country. Under Sections 1(e) and 8(b) of the Copyright Law, U.S. C.A., Title 17, §§ 1(e), 8(b), protection against mechanical' reproduction is denied unless substantially similar protection is accorded to United States citizens; and it is expressly provided that the existence of these reciprocal conditions shall be determined by the President “by proclamation made from time to time”. In construing these sections, the Attorney General has ruled that there must be a separate proclamation of the existence of reciprocal conditions as to mechanical reproduction (29 Op. Atty. Gen. p. 64). In the absence of such a proclamation, the plaintiff cannot avail himself of our -copyright laws; *356 and the complaint is fatally defective in not alleging affirmatively that a proclamation to that effect was made. This disposition makes it unnecessary to decide the other questions raised by the motion.

The motion of the defendant, Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. Supp. 355, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portuondo-v-columbia-phonograph-co-nysd-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack