Werckmeister v. American Lithographic Co.
Citations
- 117 F. 360
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5106
Syllabus
<p>1. Copyright—Picture—Exhibition Without Notice of Copyright—Publication—Injunction.</p> <p>An artist transferred to complainant the copyright in his picture, and complainant caused it to be copyrighted in this country, and published copies, all of which carried the notice of copyright required by Rev. St. § 4962, as amended by the act of June 18, 1874. After such transfer the picture was publicly displayed at the exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts at London for several months, without a notice of the copyright Thereafter defendants published copies of the picture, and complainant sought to restrain their further publication. Held, that such exhibition of the picture was a publication thereof within the meaning of such section; hence the injunction should be denied.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the state court never conducted the evidentiary hearing that the federal court required it to hold within 90 days of its order disposing of the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
- petitioner order \released and permanently discharged from the custody of the respondent\ when respondent failed to comply with conditional writ
- the state court never conducted the evidentiary hearing that the federal court required it to hold within 90 days of its order disposing of the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Thomas
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.