Mifflin v. Dutton
Annotate this Case
190 U.S. 265 (1903)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903)
Mifflin v. Dutton
Argued April 30, May 1, 1903
Decided June 1, 1903
190 U.S. 265
The preceding case, Mifflin v. R. H. White Co., ante, p. 190 U. S. 260, followed, and held that, under the Copyright Act of 1831, the authorized appearance of an author's work in a magazine without the statutory notice of copyright specially applicable thereto makes it public property and vitiates the copyright previously taken out by the author, and that the copyright of the magazine under its own title by the publisher is not a compliance, so far as the authors are concerned, with the statutory requirements as to notice of copyright in the several copies of each and every edition published.
This was a bill in equity by the firm of Houghton, Mifflin & Co., assignees of the late Harriet Beecher Stowe, against the firm of Houghton & Dutton, for a violation of the copyright of the "Minister's Wooing," by Mrs. Stowe.
The "Minister's Wooing" appeared serially in the Atlantic Monthly during the year 1859. The contract between Mrs. Stowe and her publishers, Phillips, Sampson & Co., after reciting that Mrs. Stowe was the author and owned the copyright of and right to publish the book gave to Phillips, Sampson & Co. "the sole and exclusive right to publish the same in this country." After the first twenty-nine chapters had appeared in the first ten numbers of the Atlantic Monthly for the year 1859, the author published the whole work in book form on October 15, 1859, and took proper steps to secure the copyright, notice of which was given in the name of Harriet Beecher Stowe. At the date of this publication, the last thirteen chapters had not been elsewhere published, but subsequently appeared in the November and December numbers, which were copyrighted by Ticknor & Fields, to whom the Atlantic Monthly had been sold, and in accordance with an arrangement with Mrs. Stowe, by which the contract between her and Phillips, Sampson & Co. was assigned to Ticknor & Fields.
Upon this state of facts, the circuit court dismissed the bill,
and, upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals, that court affirmed the decree. Both this and the preceding case were covered by the same opinion.