Tbе great bulk of tbe papers bled on this motion and the difficulties inherent in the nature of thе questions involved have delayed this decision, greatly to the court’s regret, far beyоnd the time originally intended. It is manifest that the various pamphlets declared upon аre proper subjects of copyright. It seems equally clear that, under his contrаct, which made it Ewald’s duty while a salaried employé of complainant, inter alia, tо compile, prepare, and revise the instruction and question papers, the literary product of such work became tbe property of the complainant, which it was entitled to copyright, and which, when copyrighted, Ewald would have no more right than any stranger to copy or reproduce. There is a strong equity in favor of complainant, arising out of tbe fact that defendants’ circular of information oрens with statements evidently calculated to induce a belief that their school is the same as, or else a successor of, the complainant’s. The motion, however, must be decided, not upon collateral equities, but according to the principles of the law of copyright. The fundamental question is one of fact, viz. are defendants’ pamphlets compilations borrowed to a substantial extent from cоmplainant’s copyrighted compilations, or are they independent comрilations from the original sources? In view' of the affidavit of Mrs. Gross, the direct evidencе of piracy given by Roden should not be accepted as conclusive upon preliminary motion. Tbe judge who bears the cause at final hearing will have the benefit of cross-examination of both witnesses, and can decide whose is the more truthful stаtement. There are undoubtedly very many closely parallel passages. If the first work were original, it would be entirely clear that the second is a copy; but the first work is itself a compilation, using largely the language of the original books, from which it is taken. Moreover, the very nature of the subject-matter treated of in both series — arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc. — is such that similarities of definition, explanation, and examples are not so persuasive as they might be were the subject history, litеrature, art, law, etc. Besides, it is thought that, although Ewaid was not: a t liberty to reproducе so mucli of his work as had been copyrighted by the employers for whom it was preрared, even by availing of his recollection of the contents of the coрyrighted pamphlets, he was not debarred, after his contract terminated, from making a new compilation, nor from using the same' original sources of information, nor from аvailing of such information as to the needs of students and the best methods of getting in mental touch with them as he may have acquired while superintending complainant’s school. And it may wrell be that defendants’ information in that regard has fended largely to produce similаrity of form and arrangement without directly borrowing from the original pamphlets. As to the rеspective circulars of information, much of the similarity arises from the circumstanсe that defendants have closely followed the complainant’s system of teаching, which, of course, is not, as a system, protected by the statute. Very much of the mаtter contained in the defendants’ circular is found in the first uncopyrighted
Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Correspondence Schools Co.
1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3054
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...1899Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.