White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co.

Second Circuit

White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co.

147 F. 226, 77 C.C.A. 368, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1906

DocketNos. 216, 221

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 F. 226 (White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 147 F. 226, 77 C.C.A. 368, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised in these cases are of vast importance and involve far-reaching results. They have been exhaustively discussed in the clear and forcible briefs and arguments of [227]*227counsel. We are of the opinion that the rights sought to be protected by these suits belong to the same class as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes, and that the reasons which led to the passage of said statutes apply witli great force to the protection of rights of copyright against such an appropriation of the fruits of an author’s conception as results from the acts of defendant. But in view of the fact that the law of copyright is a creature of statute, and is not declaratory of the common law, and that it confers distinct and limited rights, which did not exist at the common law, we arc constrained to hold that it must be strictly construed, and that we are not at liberty to extend its provisions, either by resort to equitable considerations or to a strained interpretation of the terms of the statute.

We are therefore of the opinion that a perforated paper roll, such as is manufactured by defendant, is not a copy of complainant’s staff notation, for the following reasons: It is not a copy in fact. It is not designed to be read or actually used in reading music as the original stall notation is; and the claim that it may be read, which is practically disproved by the great preponderance of evidence, even if true, would establish merely a theory or possibility of use, as distinguished from an actual use. The argument that, because the roll is a notation or record of the music, it is therefore a copy, would apply to the disc of the phonograph or the barrel of the organ, which, it must be admitted, are not copies of the sheet music. The perforations in the rolls are not a varied form of symbols substituted for the symbols used by the author. They are mere adjuncts of a valve mechanism in a machine. In fact, the machine or musical playing device is the thing which appropriates the author’s property and publishes it by producing the musical sounds, thus conveying the author’s conception to the public.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised in these cases are of vast importance and involve far-reaching results. They have been exhaustively discussed in the clear and forcible briefs and arguments of [227]*227counsel. We are of the opinion that the rights sought to be protected by these suits belong to the same class as those covered by the specific provisions of the copyright statutes, and that the reasons which led to the passage of said statutes apply witli great force to the protection of rights of copyright against such an appropriation of the fruits of an author’s conception as results from the acts of defendant. But in view of the fact that the law of copyright is a creature of statute, and is not declaratory of the common law, and that it confers distinct and limited rights, which did not exist at the common law, we arc constrained to hold that it must be strictly construed, and that we are not at liberty to extend its provisions, either by resort to equitable considerations or to a strained interpretation of the terms of the statute.

We are therefore of the opinion that a perforated paper roll, such as is manufactured by defendant, is not a copy of complainant’s staff notation, for the following reasons: It is not a copy in fact. It is not designed to be read or actually used in reading music as the original stall notation is; and the claim that it may be read, which is practically disproved by the great preponderance of evidence, even if true, would establish merely a theory or possibility of use, as distinguished from an actual use. The argument that, because the roll is a notation or record of the music, it is therefore a copy, would apply to the disc of the phonograph or the barrel of the organ, which, it must be admitted, are not copies of the sheet music. The perforations in the rolls are not a varied form of symbols substituted for the symbols used by the author. They are mere adjuncts of a valve mechanism in a machine. In fact, the machine or musical playing device is the thing which appropriates the author’s property and publishes it by producing the musical sounds, thus conveying the author’s conception to the public.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. 226, 77 C.C.A. 368, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-smith-music-pub-co-v-apollo-co-ca2-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack