MIFFLIN
v.
DUTTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harriet Beecher Stowe failed to secure valid copyright protection for portions of her novel "The Minister's Wooing" because the first twenty-nine chapters were published in the Atlantic Monthly without any copyright notice before she took steps to obtain a copyright, and the final thirteen chapters were similarly published in the Atlantic Monthly without proper copyright notice on those chapters themselves. The Supreme Court held that under the Copyright Act, an author must provide proper notice of copyright on each published edition to maintain copyright protection, and the absence of such notice—even though the magazine itself was copyrighted—caused the author to lose her copyright rights in both portions of the work.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peter PAN Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960)…yright under the constitutional grant, Act of April 29, 1802, ch. 36, 2 Stat. 171; its essentiality has been emphasized by the highest authority, Mifflin v. R. H. White & Co., 1903, 190 U.S. 260, 23 S.Ct. 769, 47 L.Ed. 1040, Mifflin v. Dutton, 1903, 190 U.S. 265, 23 S.Ct. 771, 47 L.Ed. 1043; Louis Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 1914, 235 U.S. 33, 37, 35 S.Ct. 6, 59 L.Ed. 113 and when Congress has wished to make an exception, it has known how to do so, see 17 U.S.C. § 21. The notice requirement serv…
-
Nat'l Comics Publ'ns, Inc. v. Fawcett Publ'ns, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951)…llude to; it must await development upon the new trial. Judgment reversed; and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion! ■■ . § 9, Title 17 U.S.Code. . Donaldson v. Becket, 4 Burrows 2408. . Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265; 23 S.Ct. 771, 47 L.Ed. 1043; Louis DeJonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 235 U.S. 33, 35 S.Ct. 6, 59 L.Ed. 113; Deward & Rich, Inc., v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corp., 4 Cir., 120 F. 2d 537. . United Thrift Plan v. National Thrift Plan, Inc., D.C.…
-
Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1912)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence