Public Ledger Co. v. New York Times Co.

279 F. 747, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1618
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided January 26, 1922·No. No. 170·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It being admitted and agreed that all plaintiff’s rights, whatever they are, grow out of a certain contract between plaint ff and the Times Publishing Company, Limited, of Great Britain, we ground decision on a single point, and express no opinion on all other matters discussed at bar or suggested in the opinion below.

The point is this •: The contract in question did not, and was not intended to, give plaintiff any authority to copyright in this country the * news, special articles, and other matter” of which plaintiff’s representative was permitted to make a “résumé or copy, * * * for the pur-

pose of transmission to the Public Ledger for publication.”

Since plaintiff was without authority to copyright, its action for infringement of copyright must 'fail.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

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

Public Ledger Co. v. New York Times Co., 279 F. 747, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1618 (2d Cir. 1922).

279 F. 747 (Public Ledger Co. v. New York Times Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra
895 F. Supp. 1347 (D. Arizona, 1995)
Victor Decosta v. Viacom International, Inc.
981 F.2d 602 (First Circuit, 1992)
International Film Exchange, Ltd. v. Corinth Films, Inc.
621 F. Supp. 631 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Van Cleef & Arpels, Inc. v. Schechter
308 F. Supp. 674 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Fields v. Comm'r
14 T.C. 1202 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Wodehouse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
166 F.2d 986 (Fourth Circuit, 1948)
Egner v. E. C. Schirmer Music Co.
139 F.2d 398 (First Circuit, 1943)
Eliot v. Geare-Marston, Inc.
30 F. Supp. 301 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1939)
Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc.
104 F.2d 306 (Second Circuit, 1939)
Cohan v. Richmond
19 F. Supp. 771 (S.D. New York, 1937)
Kaplan v. Fox Film Corporation
19 F. Supp. 780 (S.D. New York, 1937)
Quinn-Brown Pub. Corporation v. Chilton Co.
15 F. Supp. 213 (S.D. New York, 1936)
M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co.
298 F. 470 (D. South Carolina, 1924)