BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

v.

SHERMAN D. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HILL, DECEASED

Citator

Cited By

• Ansehl v. Puritan Pharm. Co., 61 F.2d 131 (8th Cir. 1932)
  …U. S. 82, 86, 19 S. Ct. 606, 43 L. Ed. 904; Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.(2d) 119 (C. C. A. 2d); Guthrie v. Curlett, 36 F.(2d) 694, (C. C. A. 2d); Edwards & Deutsch Lithog. Co. v. Boorman, 15 F.(2d) 35 (C. C. A. 7th), certiorari denied 273 U. S. 738, 47 S. Ct. 247, 71 L. Ed. 867. “One of the entities or things which every, atith'or tries to insert in his copyrighted, work is, a-set of ideas; yet ideas as such are not protected. * * * The copyright law protects the means of expressing an idea;…
• Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co. & George Banta & Co., 566 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1977)
  …plaintiffs’ book. The copyright protected not merely the descriptive material but also “the selection, the ordering and arrangement” of the names and addresses. Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co. v. Boorman, 15 F. 2d 35, 36 (7th Cir.), cert.denied, 273 U.S. 738, 47 S.Ct. 247, 71 L.Ed. 867 (1926). Plaintiffs’ cata-logue would have been copyrightable without the descriptive material. The inclusion of that material, which was also copyrightable, did not destroy the protection the law affords the compilation o…
• Wilkie v. Santly Bros., Inc., 91 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1937)
  …in the act, for access may be inferred or found circumstantially from the plan, the arrangement, and the combination of materials contained in the composition. Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co. v. Boorman, 15 F.(2d) 35 (C.C.A.7), certiorari denied 273 U.S. 738, 47 S.Ct. 247, 71 L.Ed. 867. Experts, trained in the art of music, who were produced at the trial, referred to the various indicia of copying and plagiarism which, in their judgment, no amount of coincidence could explain. Internal proof of access m…