The right of an author ore publisher, under the copyright law,
is infringed only when other persona produce a substantial copy of
the whole or of a material part of the book or other thing for
which he secured a copyright. Where, therefore, the owner of a
copyright for maps of certain wards of
"the City of New York, surveyed under the direction of insurance
companies of said city, which exhibit each lot and building, and
the classes as shown by the different coloring and characters set
forth in the reference,"
brought his bill to restrain the publication of similar maps of
the City of Philadelphia,
held that the bill could not be
sustained.
Page 99 U. S. 675
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The complainants are the owners of a copyright of a series of
maps of the City of New York, prepared for the use of those engaged
in the business of fire insurance, the title of which is as
follows:
"Maps of the City of New York, surveyed under the direction of
insurance companies of said city, by William Perris, civil engineer
and surveyor, 1852. Volume 1 comprising the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th
wards. The maps exhibit each lot and building, and the classes as
shown by the different coloring and characters set forth in the
reference."
The maps were made after a careful survey and examination of the
lots and buildings in the enumerated wards of the city, and were so
marked with arbitrary coloring and signs, explained by a reference
or key, that an insurer could see at a glance what were the general
characteristics of the different buildings within the territory
delineated, and many other details of construction and occupancy
necessary for his information when taking risks. They are useful
contrivances for the dispatch of business, but of no value whatever
except in connection with the identical property they purport to
describe.
The defendant made the necessary examination and survey, and
published a similar series of maps of Philadelphia. At first he
used substantially the same system of coloring and signs, and
consequently substantially the same key that had been adopted by
the complainants, but afterwards he changed his signs somewhat, and
of course changed his key.
The question we are to consider is whether the publication of
the defendant infringes the copyright of the complainants, and we
think it does not. A copyright gives the author or the publisher
the exclusive right of multiplying copies of what he
Page 99 U. S. 676
has written or printed. It follows that to infringe this right,
a substantial copy of the whole or of a material part must be
produced. It needs no argument to show that the defendant's maps
are not copies, either in whole or in part, of those of the
complainants. They are arranged substantially on the same plan, but
those of the defendant represent Philadelphia, while those of the
complainants represent New York. They are not only not copies of
each other, but they do not convey the same information.
The complainants have no more an exclusive right to use the form
of the characters they employ to express their ideas upon the face
of the map than they have to use the form of type they select to
print the key. Scarcely any map is published on which certain
arbitrary signs, explained by a key printed at some convenient
place for reference, are not used to designate objects of special
interest, such as rivers, railroads, boundaries, cities, towns,
&c., and yet we think it has never been supposed that a simple
copyright of the map gave the publisher an exclusive right to the
use upon other maps of the particular signs and key which he saw
fit to adopt for the purposes of his delineations. That, however,
is what the complainants seek to accomplish in this case. The
defendant has not copied their maps. All he has done at any time
has been to use to some extent their system of arbitrary signs and
their key.
Decree affirmed.