Mifflin v. Dutton
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. And Henry Glass & Co. v. Martin Weiner Corp. (2d Cir. 1960)
- Public Affairs Associates, Inc., Trading as Public Affairs Press v. Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- West Publishing Co. v. Edward Thompson Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York 1909)
- Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Regent Baby Products Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1972)
- Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. (2d Cir. 1970)
- Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. (2d Cir. 1970)
- DeSilva Construction Corp. v. Herrald (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1962)
- Metro Associated Services, Inc. v. Webster City Graphic, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Iowa 1953)
- Wrench v. Universal Pictures Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1952)
- National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. (2d Cir. 1951)
- Leigh v. Gerber (District Court, S.D. New York 1949)
- Deward & Rich v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corporation (4th Cir. 1941)
- Sieff v. Continental Auto Supply, Inc. (D. Minn. 1941)
- Deward & Rich v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corporation (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1940)
- McDaniel v. Friedman (7th Cir. 1938)
- Record & Guide Co. v. Bromley (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1909)
- Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co. (7th Cir. 1907)
- Harper v. Donohue (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1905)
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
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,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.