U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1922

Public Ledger Co. v. New York Times Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided January 26, 1922

279 F. 747; 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1618

Counsel

Stetson, Jennings & Russell, of New York City (Thomas Raeburn White, of Philadelphia, Pa., and William C. Cannon, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant., Alfred A. Cook and Harold Nathan, both of New York City, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Wodehouse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (4th Cir. 1948)
Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1995)
Victor Decosta v. Viacom International, Inc. (1st Cir. 1992)
DeCosta v. Viacom International (1st Cir. 1992)
International Film Exchange, Ltd. v. Corinth Films, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1985)
Van Cleef & Arpels, Inc. v. Schechter (District Court, S.D. New York 1969)
National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1950)
Egner v. E. C. Schirmer Music Co. (1st Cir. 1943)
Eliot v. Geare-Marston, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1939)
Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc. (2d Cir. 1939)
Cohan v. Richmond (District Court, S.D. New York 1937)
Kaplan v. Fox Film Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1937)
Quinn-Brown Pub. Corporation v. Chilton Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1936)
M. Witmark & Sons v. Pastime Amusement Co. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1924)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.