Sarcon

sarcon

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), 347 U.S Court Filing, retrieved on September 27, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part of this filing . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Case Number: 111 U.S. 53 Plaintiff: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company Defendant: Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 Filing Date: March 17, 1884 Location: Supreme Court of the United States TABLE OF CONTENT Statement of Facts Opinion of the Court About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 111 U.S. 53 retrieved on September 27, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v. Sarony: On Copyright Laws for Photographs

Hi there! This is a continuation of my for stress testing your services. The documentation mentions that the main engine for load is Phantom, but it can be replaced with Pandora if you need to create unique test scenarios or work with other types of requests (such as grpc or any other binaries). In this article, we will explore how to integrate Yandex Pandora for two cases: first article on how to use Yandex Tank GRPC flatbuffer (over http) As I mentioned before, our main goal is to use a simple tool with straightforward documentation that doesn’t require hiring a bunch of people to set up the test. Pandora, like Tank, has very simple and understandable documentation, does exactly what we need, and has a low entry threshold. In my case, the primary stack is Golang, and I choose solutions around it. https://hackernoon.com/turbocharge-load-testing-yandextank-ghz-combo-for-lightning-fast-code-checks?embedable=true Let’s start by referring to the documentation and see what Pandora is all about. “Pandora is a high-performance load generator in the Go language. It has built-in HTTP(S) and HTTP/2 support, and you can write your own load scenarios in Go, compiling them just before your test.” Since we are interested in scenarios, let’s take a look at the documentation: https://yandex.github.io/pandora/eng/custom.html?source=post_page-----12c250f2bff2--------------------------------&embedable=true As we can see from the documentation, there is an excellent example of how to write our “gun” to create our load engine. Great, let’s take this example and copy-paste it into our repository. Next, let’s look at our service contracts: syntax = "proto3";

option go_package = "/docs";

service DocumentService {
 rpc GetAllByLimitAndOffset(GetAllRequest) returns (GetAllResponse) {}
 rpc Save(SaveRequest) returns (SaveResponse) {}
 rpc Validate(ValidateRequest) returns (ValidateResponse) {}
} Our task involves covering two methods ( ): yes, we’ll skip save method for current case Save Validate Create a Yandex-tank folder, create a GRPC folder inside it, move our PROTO file there, and generate contracts with the command: protoc - go_out=./docs - go_opt=paths=source_relative \
 - go-grpc_out=./docs - go-grpc_opt=paths=source_relative docs.proto After that, we will get files as shown in the screenshot. And now, let’s start to write our own gun. We have to add a huge number of imports and create a struct for Custom params: package main

import (
 "context"
 "log"
 "strconv"
 "time"

 _ "github.com/golang/protobuf/ptypes/timestamp"
 "github.com/spf13/afero"
 "google.golang.org/grpc"
 pb "grpc-gun/docs"

 "github.com/yandex/pandora/cli"
 "github.com/yandex/pandora/components/phttp/import"
 "github.com/yandex/pandora/core"
 "github.com/yandex/pandora/core/aggregator/netsample"
 "github.com/yandex/pandora/core/import"
 "github.com/yandex/pandora/core/register"
)

type Ammo struct {
 Tag    string
 Param1 string
 Param2 string
 Param3 string
} Now, we should add and where we can add our grpc client (just copy and paste from official docs) GunConfig Gun, type GunConfig struct {
 Target string `validate:"required"` // Configuration will fail, without target defined
}

type Gun struct {
 // Configured on construction.
 client grpc.ClientConn
 conf   GunConfig
 // Configured on Bind, before shooting
 aggr core.Aggregator // Maybe your custom Aggregator.
 core.GunDeps
} And add new func for Gun, almost done! func NewGun(conf GunConfig) *Gun {
   return &Gun{conf: conf}
} We can see, that we should add a little bit more for running: – Bind method. We just bind our client and args: – override Shoot method func (g *Gun) Bind(aggr core.Aggregator, deps core.GunDeps) error {
 // create gRPC stub at gun initialization
 conn, err := grpc.Dial(
  g.conf.Target,
  grpc.WithInsecure(),
  grpc.WithTimeout(time.Second),
  grpc.WithUserAgent("load test, pandora custom shooter"))
 if err != nil {
  log.Fatalf("FATAL: %s", err)
 }
 g.client = *conn
 g.aggr = aggr
 g.GunDeps = deps
 return nil
}

func (g *Gun) Shoot(ammo core.Ammo) {
 customAmmo := ammo.(*Ammo)
 g.shoot(customAmmo)
} It’s time to add switch method for SaveCase and ValidateCase requests and to add methods, as example for ValidateCase: func (g *Gun) caseValidate(client pb.DocumentServiceClient, ammo *Ammo) int {
 code := 0
 docName := ammo.Param1

 out, err := client.Validate(
  context.TODO(), &pb.ValidateRequest{Document: createDoc(docName)},
 )

 if err != nil {
  log.Printf("FATAL: %s", err)
  code = 500
 }

 if out != nil {
  code = 200
 }
 return code
} Full code here: https://github.com/IliaEre/serialisation-contest/tree/main/common/loadtest/yandex-tank/grpc?source=post_page-----12c250f2bff2--------------------------------&embedable=true Alright, pay close attention! func main() {
     // Standard imports.
     fs := afero.NewOsFs()
     coreimport.Import(fs)
     // May not be imported, if you don't need http guns, etc.
     phttp.Import(fs)
    // Custom imports. Integrate your custom types into configuration system.
     coreimport.RegisterCustomJSONProvider("grpc_provider", func() core.Ammo { return &Ammo{} })
    register.Gun("grpc_gun", NewGun, func() GunConfig {
     return GunConfig{
     Target: "localhost:84",
     }
     })
    cli.Run()
} When creating our gun, we must specify everything to compile and run it. We create a provider, specifying the name “grpc_provider” We create a gun and specify the name “grpc_gun” In the target, we specify**“localhost:84”** the location where our service is accessible. Okay, let’s continue. We have successfully copied and adjusted the code for the gun. Now, how do we run it, and what do we need? First, let’s create ammo again. This time, we’ll simply describe them like this: {"tag": "/ValidateCase", "Param1": "validate_doc_grpc_pandora"} This is necessary so that, in the method, we can retrieve the parameters needed for the test. In our case, we will retrieve the document name specified in Param1. Our code will automatically pass this parameter to the ValidateCase method, and we’ll be able to retrieve it. Great, the ammo is ready. Now, let’s configure the test itself: pools:
  - id: HTTP pool
    gun:
      type: grpc_gun   # custom gun name (specified at `register.Gun("my_custom_gun_name", ...`)
      target: "localhost:84"
    ammo:
      type: grpc_provider
      source:
        type: file
        path: validate-json.ammo
    result:
      type: phout
      destination: ./phout.log
    rps: { duration: 60s, type: const, ops: 1000 }
    startup:
      type: once
      times: 10 Here, we specify our ammo as “validate-json.ammo” Their type is “grpc_provider” Our gun is “grpc_gun” The load is 1000 rps for 60 seconds: rps: { duration: 60s, type: const, ops: 1000 } And the output goes to the file “./phout.log” — Yandex Tank understands this. The finishing straight — let’s now perform three simple actions: Build our gun. Assemble a new configurator for the tank. Run tests and check the results. Building it is very straightforward — just like a simple Go application: GOOS=linux GOARCH=amd64 go build It’s important to specify `GOOS=linux GOARCH=amd64`; otherwise, you might encounter errors when launching the tank. That’s it; the binary file is ready. Let’s update another configurator: phantom:
  enabled: false
pandora:
  enabled: true
  package: yandextank.plugins.Pandora
  pandora_cmd: ./grpc-gun # Pandora executable path
  config_file: ./validate-load.yml # Pandora config path
overload:
  enabled: true
  package: yandextank.plugins.DataUploader
  job_name: "grpc validate report"
  token_file: "env/token.txt"
telegraf:
  enabled: false
autostop:
  autostop:
    - time(1s,10s) # if request average > 1s
    - http(5xx,100%,1s) # if 500 errors > 1s
    - http(4xx,25%,10s) # if 400 > 25%
    - net(xx,25,10) # if amount of non-zero net-codes in every second of last 10s period is more than 25 Specify where our gun and its settings are located. Leave everything else as before and run it all with this script: echo "run tank"
docker run \
 -v $(pwd):/var/loadtest \
 - net="host" \
 -it direvius/yandex-tank -c validate-tank-load.yml After that, we will see our results. Special gun for flatbuffer! For flatbuffer, the story repeats. All you need to do is adjust your client code from grpc to http. Here’s an example: type Gun struct {
   // Configured on construction.
   client http.Client
   conf GunConfig
   // Configured on Bind, before shooting.
   aggr core.Aggregator // Maybe your custom Aggregator.
   core.GunDeps
   files [][]byte
}

func NewGun(conf GunConfig) *Gun {
   return &Gun{conf: conf}
}

func (g *Gun) Bind(aggr core.Aggregator, deps core.GunDeps) error {
   c := http.Client{Timeout: time.Duration(1) * time.Second}
   g.client = c
   g.GunDeps = deps
   g.aggr = aggr
} And then create similar methods and describe their behavior: func (g *Gun) caseValidate(client *http.Client) int {
  host := g.conf.Target
  response, err := client.Post(host+"/report/validate", "application/octet-stream", bytes.NewBuffer(g.files[2]))
  if err != nil {
   log.Printf("FATAL: %s", err)
   return 500
  }
  return response.StatusCode
} That’s it! In conclusion We’ve explored a new tool for performance testing called Yandex Pandora. You can run it as a standalone load engine if you don’t need fancy metrics. Alternatively, you can run it based on Yandex Tank, and in this case, you’ll get beautiful graphs and all the features of this cool tool! That’s all, I hope it was helpful! Thank you. Full code here: https://github.com/IliaEre/serialisation-contest/tree/main/common/loadtest/yandex-tank?embedable=true Also published . here

Leveraging Yandex Pandora: Stress Testing GRPC and Flatbuffer Services

LOVEDAY MAKES A SURPRISING ANNOUNCEMENT

THE ELDER SON.

279 Stories To Learn About Non Fungible Tokens

BLEISTEIN v. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 239 Court Filing, retrieved on September 29, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 3 of 4. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Opinion of the Court MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by writ of error. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 828. It is an action brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover the penalties prescribed for infringements of copyrights. Rev. Stat. §§ 4952, 4956, 4965, amended by act of March 3, 1891, c. 565, 26 Stat. 1109, and act of M arch 2, 1895, c. 194, 28 Stat. 965. The alleged infringements consisted in the copying in reduced form of three chromolithographs prepared by employes of the plaintiffs for advertisements of a circus owned by one Wallace. Each of the three contained a portrait of Wallace in the corner and lettering bearing some slight relation to the scheme of decoration, indicating the subject of the design and the fact that the reality was to be seen at the circus. One of the designs was of an ordinary ballet, one of a number of men and women, described as the Stirk family, performing on bicycles, and one of groups of men and women whitened to represent statues. The Circuit Court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the chromolithographs were not within the protection of the copyright law, and this ruling was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Courier Lithographing Co. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 993. There was evidence warranting the inference that the designs belonged to the plaintiffs, they having been produced by persons employed and paid by the plaintiffs in their establishment to make those very things. Gill v. United States, 160 U. S. 426, 435; Colliery Engineer Company v. United Correspondence Schools Company, 94 Fed. Rep. 152; Carte v. Evans, 27 Fed. Rep. 861. It fairly might be found also that the copyrights were taken out in the proper names. One of them was taken out in the name of the Courier Cow pany and the other two in the names of the Courier LithograpLing Company. The former was the name of an unincorporated joint stock association formed under the laws of New York, Laws of 1894, c. 235, and made up of the plaintiffs, the other a trade variant on that name. Scribner v. Clark, 50 Fed. Rep. 473, 47 4, 475 ; S. C., sub nom. Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488. Finally, there was evidence that the pictures were copyrighted before publication. There may be a question whether the use by the defendant for Wallace was not lawful within the terms of the contract with Wallace, or a more general one as to what rights the plaintiffs reserved. But we cannot pass upon these questions as matter of law; they will be for the jury when the case is tried again, and therefore we come at once to the ground of decision in the courts below. That ground was not found in any variance between pleading and proof, such as was put forward in argument, but in the nature and purpose of the designs. We shall do no more than mention the suggestion that painting and engraving unless for a mechanical end are not among the useful arts, the progress of which Congress is empowered by the Constitution to promote. The Constitution does not limit the useful to that which satisfies immediate bodily needs. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53. It is obvious also that the plaintiffs' case is not affected by the fact, if it be one, that the pictures represent actual groups-visible things. They seem from the testimony to have been composed from hints or description, not from sight of a performance. But even if they had been drawn from the life, that fact would not deprive them of protection. The opposite proposition would mean that a portrait by Velasquez or Whistler was common property because others might try their hand on the same face. Others are free to copy the original. They are not free to copy the copy. Blunt v. Patten, 2 Paine, 397, 400. See Kelly v. Morris, L. R. 1 Eq. 697; .3farris v. l5ight, L. R. 5 Ch. 279. The copy is the personal reaction of an individual upon nature. Personality always contains something unique. It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man's alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act. If there is a restriction it is not to be found in the limited pretensions of these particular works. The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories and the like, which may be copyrighted. Drone, Copyright, 153. See Hender.so v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 75S, 765. The amount of training required for humbler efforts than those before us is well indicated by Ruskin. "If any young person, after being taught what is, in polite circles, called 'drawing,' will try to copy the commonest piece of real work,-suppose a lithograph on the title page of a new opera air, or a woodcut in the cheapest illustrated newspaper of the day-they will find themselves entirely beaten." Elements of Drawing, 1st ed. 3. There is no reason to doubt that these prints in their ensemble and in all their details, in their design and particular combinations of figures, lines and colors, are the original work of the plaintiffs' designer. If it be necessary, there is express testimony to that effect. It would be pressing the defendant's right to the verge, if not beyond, to leave the question of originality to the jury upon the evidence in this case, as was done in Hegema v. Springer, 110 Fed. Rep. 374. We assume that the construction of Rev. Stat. § 4952, allowing a copyright to the "author, inventor, designer, or proprietor of any engraving, cut, print . . . [or] chromo" is affected by the act of 1874, c. 301, § 3, 18 Stat. 78, 79. That section provides that "in the construction of this act the words ' engraving,' ' cut' and ' print' shall be applied only to pictorial illustrations or works connected with the fine arts." We see no reason for taking the words "connected with the fine arts" as qualifying anything except the word "works," but it would not change our decision if we should assume further that they also qualified "pictorial illustrations," as the defendant contends. These chromolithographs are "pictorial illustrations." The word "illustrations" does not mean that they must illustrate the text of a book, and that the etchings of Rembrandt or Steinla's engraving of the Madonna di San Sisto could not be protected to-day if any man were able to produce them. Again, the act however construed, does not mean that ordinary posters are not good enough to be considered within its scope. The antithesis to "illustrations or works connected with the fine arts" is not works of little merit or of humble degree, or illustrations addressed to the less educated classes; it is " prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture." Certainly works are not the less connected with the fine arts because their pictorial quality attracts the crowd and therefore gives them a real use-if use means to increase trade and to help to make money. A picture is none the less a picture and none the less a subject of copyright that it is used for an advertisement. And if pictures may be used to advertise soap, or the theatre, or monthly magazines, as they are, they may be used to advertise a circus. Of course, the ballet is as legitimate a subject for illustration as any other. A rule cannot be laid down that would excommunicate the paintings of Degas. Finally, the special adaptation of these pictures to the advertisement of the Wallace shows does not prevent a copyright. That may be a circumstance for the jury to consider in determining the extent of Mr. Wallace's rights, but it is not a bar. Moreover, on the evidence, such prints are used by less pretentious exhibitions when those for whom they were prepared have given them up. It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke. It may be more than doubted, for instance, whether the etchings of Goya or the paintings of Manet would have been sure of protection when seen for the first time. At the other end, copyright would be denied to pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. Yet if they command the interest of any public, they have a commercial value-it would be bold to say that they have not an aesthetic and educational value-and the taste of any public is not to be treated with contempt. It is an ultimate fact for the moment, whatever may be our hopes for a change. That these pictures had their worth and their success is sufficiently shown by the desire to reproduce them without regard to the plaintiffs' rights. See Henderson v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 758, 765. We are of opinion that there was evidence that the plaintiffs have rights entitled to the protection of the law. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on September 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Court Upholds Copyright Protection for Circus Advertisement Prints in Landmark Decision

BLEISTEIN v. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 239 Court Filing, retrieved on September 29, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 2 of 4. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Argument for Defendant in Error Mr. Edmund W. Kittredge, with whom Mr. Joseph Wilby was on the brief, for defendant in error, contended that the plaintiff in error was not entitled to copyright. The evidence established that these three prints were ordered by B. E. Wallace, proprietor of the circus known as the "Wallace Shows," under contract with him as an 'advertisement for his show, and they have never been made for anybody else. All of these pictures purported to be representations of acts to be done in the Wallace Shows, and all were made under a representation by Wallace, expressed on the face of the pictures, that his show was going to do these things. All these posters contain reading matter indicating that these were pictures of acts to be done in the Wallace Shows, and they all included pictures of Mr. Wallace himself. They were prints and the copyright inscription was insufficient. But for the provision in the first clause of this act the inscription, "Copyright, 1898, Courier Litho. Co., Buffalo, N. Y.," would have been fatal to the plaintiffs' right of action. Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U. S. 123. The inscription prescribed by section 4962 of the Revised Statutes was otherwise indispensable to the maintenance of an action for the infringement of a copyright. The notice given on each one of these pictures was that authorized by the act of June 18, 1874. Having thus availed themselves of the provisions of this act, clearly the plaintiffs are not in position to claim that the pictures are not covered by its provisions. Again, if these pictures were chromos, and not prints, cuts or engravings, then under the allegations of the petition they were not admissible in evidence because they were not in support of the allegations of the petition. As to what a chromo is and how statute should be construed, Yuengling v. Schile, 12 Fed. Rep. 107; Bolles v. Outing Company, 175 U. S. 262; Thornton v. Schreiber, 124 U. S. 612; Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 2 Fed. Rep. 217; Ehret v. Pierce, 10 Fed. Rep. 554; S. C., 18 Blatch. 302; Schumacher v. Wogram, 35 Fed. Rep. 210; Higgins v. Kueffel, 140 U. S. 428. As to advertisements and copyrights, citing Cobbett v. W1oodward, L. R. 14 Eq. 407, cited with approval by this court in Baker v. Selden, 101 U. S. 106; Clayton v. Stone & Hall, 2 Paine, 392; Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. Rep. 216. There was no evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs themselves, or either of them, were the authors of these prints. It was claimed that they were the proprietors because, as they also claimed, the design or conception was that of their employ~s, working for them, under salaries, and that their designs were the property of the employer. If they were not themselves the authors, then it was incumbent upon them to allege how they acquired title as proprietors from the author, inventor or designer. Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53; Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q. B. D. 627; Atwell v. Ferret, 2 Blatch. 46; Bimias v. Toodworth, 4 Wash. 0. 0. Rep. 48; Black v. Allen Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 618; S. C., 56 Fed. Rep. 764; Press Pub. Co. v. Falk, 59 Fed. Rep. 524; Pollard v. Photograph Co., 40 Oh. Div. 345; Mloore v. Rugg, 46 N. W. 141 ; Dielman v. White, 102 Fed. Rep. 892; Parton v. Prang, 3 Clifford, 537; -Little v. Good, 2 Blatch. 166. It is incumbent upon the plaintiffs, in a case like this, for the recovery of penalties, to allege and to prove as alleged, every fact essential to the validity of their copyright. Jones v. Van Zandt, 5 How. 372. The copyright law does not protect what is immoral in its tendency. A print representing unchaste acts or scenes calculated to excite lustful or sensual desires in those whose minds are open to such influences, and to attract them to witness the performance of such scenes, is manifestly of that character. It is the young and immature and those who are sensually inclined who are liable to be influenced by such scenes and representations, and it is their influence upon such persons that should be considered in determining their character. Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 74; Dunlop v. United States, 165 U. S. 501; Martinetti v. Maguire, Fed. Cases, No. 9173, The Black Crook case. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on September 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Circus Print Copyright Dispute: Analyzing the Defendant's Stance

BLEISTEIN v. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 239 Court Filing, retrieved on September 29, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 4. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Argument for Plaintiffs in Error Chromolithographs representing actual groups of persons and things, which have been designed from hints or descriptions of the scenes represented, and which are to be used as advertisements for a circus are "pictorial illustrations" within the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 4952, allowing a copyright to the "author, designer, or proprietor ... of any engraving, cut, print... . or chromo" as affected by the act of 1874, chap. 301, § 3, 18 Stat. 78, 79. And on complying with all the statutory requirements the proprietors are entitled to the protection of the copyright laws. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. r von Briesen for plaintiffs in error: Mr. Ansley Wilcox and Mr. Arthu This action comes here upon writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which court heard it on writ of error directed to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky. The Circuit Court, at the close of plaintiffs' case, instructed the jury to find a verdict for defendant, which was done and judgment entered thereon. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed said judgment. There were three causes of action which were all based upon sec. 4965 of the Revised Statutes, quoted on page 60. By order of the Circuit Court, dated June 10, 1899, the marshal seized 10,590 eight-page prints and 13,205 four-page prints, described in the writ, and also five metal electrotype plates, all of which he found in the defendant's possession (page 13). The action was tried at Covington, Kentucky, on December 12 and 13, 1899, before Hon. Walter Evans, sitting as Circuit Judge, and a jury. At the outset of the trial, during the direct examination of the first witness, the court anticipated the question upon which it afterwards took the case away from the jury and decided it, by the following remark: "The real controversy will able whether this is a subject of copyright, whether it comes within the Copyright law." At the close of the plaintiffs' case, defendant moved for "peremptory instructions for the defendant." The court said, " State why, in a word," to which defendant's counsel answered: "In the first place I want to say with reference to the Statuary Exhibit. . . . It is alleged in the petition, and is in fact copyrighted on the 18th of April, and the publication plainly shows it was prior to that. That is a specific objection to that one upon that ground specifically-that is the Statuary. "The Court: Now as to the other two. "Counsel: The specific objection to this one, the Ballet, is that it is an immoral picture. "And the general objection that I make to them all is that they are none of them subject matter of copyright. They are all mere matter of advertising." The next day the court delivered a written opinion which concludes as follows: "The case must turn upon the others (other questions), and especially upon the general proposition that the things copyrighted in this case were by no means such as either the Constitution or the legislation of Congress intended to protect by the privilege of copyright. The court cannot bring its mind to yield to the conclusion that such tawdry pictures as these were ever meant to be given the enormous protection of not only the exclusive right to print them, but the additional protection of a penalty of a dollar each for reprints from them. "As previously stated, they are neither' pictorial illustrations' nor' works connected with the fine arts' within the meaning of section 4952. Not being so, there was no authority to grant the copyrights, whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the fine arts or not. "The judgment of the court is, that the plaintiffs, on their own showing, are not entitled to recover, and for that reason the motion of defendant will be granted, and I will instruct the jury to find a verdict for it." The jury, in accordance with said instruction, returned a verdict for the defendant. There is no question as to the fact of infringement. The sheets in evidence, made by defendant, contain reproductions by means of cheap .electrotype plates of each of the plaintiffs' designs. These reproductions are not in colors. The principal questions are: First. Whether on the question of artistic merit or value of these lithographic prints or chromos, the Circuit Court was justified in taking the case from the jury, and condemning them entirely as not being fit subjects for copyright. Second. Whether the copyrights were obtained for these prints in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are valid copyrights. The second question involves the inquiries: Whether the copyrights were properly taken out by the plaintiffs, in their trade names of "The Courier Co." and "The Courier Lithographing Co.," and, incidentally, whether plaintiffs have the right to sue in their individual names for infringement of these copyrights; and whether the Statuary Act Design was copyrighted before it was published. YOJ. CLXXXVIII-16. The three pictures in question are show-bills or circus bills, also called posters and, more definitely, picture-posters. They are colored lithographs or chromolithographs, commonly called " chromos." They were designed primarily to be sold to the proprietors of circuses and other shows, and by them to be used for advertising; but they could be sold to any one, or used for any purpose for which they were adapted. They were made in the plaintiffs' lithographing establishment under a special contract with the proprietor of a circus, by which the plaintiffs agreed to design and get up certain representations of scenes supposed to be exhibited at the show, the plaintiffs reserving rights of design and of copyright, and with the usual understanding that so long as the proprietor of the circus used these designs he had the right to them, but if he ceased to use any of them, the plaintiffs could sell the design or the pictures which embodied it, to any one. The fundamental question of the right to copyright such show-bills or posters, is a question of great importance, involving the protection of an immense industry. The foundation of the copyright law is in the provision of the Constitution (art. 1, sec. 8), which authorizes Congress- "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It is settled that the words "authors" and " writings," in this section, are not confined to literary writers and their works, but include, among others, designers, engravers and lithographers, as well as photographers. Burrow-Giles Litho. Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53; Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. Picture-posters or show bills, such as these chromolithographs were, are not designed for close inspection or long-continued study, like an oil painting, a steel or wood engraving, or an etching, and they are not to be judged by the same standards. They are intended to catch the eye of the passer on the street, or any one who merely glances at them, and to challenge his attention,-if possible to compel him to look again, so that he will observe what is the subject of the poster and have this forced upon his mind, and will be attracted by it. Their function is to illustrate something, and to advertise it by appealing quickly to the imagination, and conveying instantly a strong and favorable impression. Thus, to be successful, they require artistic ability, and above all things creativeness or originality of a high order, but peculiar. They must be designed boldly, and executed on broad lines, with not much attention to detail, so that the spirit of the picture will stand out at once, and almost leap at you, and will not be lost in a mass of details and minor features. Such is the ideal picture-poster, a special and peculiar branch of pictorial art, and one into which many gifted artists, highly successful in other fields, have ventured with greater or less success. Charles Hiatt's work entitled "Picture Posters," published in 1895 by George Bell & Sons, London ; "The Modern Poster," by Alexandre and others, published in 1895 by Charles Scribner's Sons. Certainly it does not lie in the mouth of the pirate, who has stolen and copied them at some expense and considerable risk, to deny that they have merit and value. I. The designs were proper subjects of copyright and each of these picture-posters was a proper subject of copyright, within the language and the spirit of the copyright law. There was abundant evidence of originality of design, of artistic merit, and of practical value and usefulness, as to each of the pictures. If any of these qualities was seriously questioned by the defence, it became the duty of the court to send the case to the jury. All of the pictures are new and original designs and involve new and original conceptions and creations. There was enough evidence on this subject to require the case to be submitted to the jury if any question was raised about it, citing, and in some instances distinguishing, as to definition of author, writings, etc., The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82; Lithograph Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53 ; Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q. B. Div. 627 ; Brightly v. Littleton, 37 Fed. Rep. 103 ; Carlisle v. Colusa County, 57 Fed. Rep. 979; Drury v. Ewing, Fed. Cases, No. 4095. If any one of the pictures was sufficiently proved to be new and original, this was enough to carry the case to the jury upon this question ; they were all proved to be new and original. II. As to artistic merit and value. The pictures being original designs, we maintain that they are of sufficient artistic merit and of sufficient value and usefulness to be entitled to copyright. At least there was enough evidence of this to require the case to be submitted to the jury, if any question was raised about it,-and furthermore no such question was raised by the defence. "If a copyrighted article has merit and value enough to be the object of piracy, it should also be of sufficient importance to be entitled to protection." Drone on Copyright, p. 212, cited with approval in Henderson v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 758, 765 ; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. Rep. 121; Hegeman v. Springer, 110 Fed. Rep. 374; Bolles v. Outing Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 966; 175 U. S. 262; Richardson v. Miller, Fed. Cases, No. 11,791. We have nothing to do with cases involving attempts to copyright mere catalogues or price lists, or labels, sometimes containing pictures, reproduced by photographic or other mechanical processes, of articles intended for sale, but which obviously have no artistic merit or originality. These decisions, whether condemning or upholding such copyrights, do not touch the questions involved in the case at bar. Distinguishing Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. Rep. 216; also citing Yuengling v. Scltile, 12 Fed. Rep. 97, 101; Sehurmaker v. Schwencke, 25 Fed. Rep. 466 ; 1amb v. Grand Ra )ids School Furniture Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 474; Drone on Copyright, 164, 165; Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. Cases, 623 ; Maple v. Junior Army &, .Navy Stores, L. R. 21 Ch. Div. 369; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. Rep. 131; Carlisle v. Colusa, County, 57 Fed Rep. 979. "The degree of merit of the copyrighted matter the law is not concerned with. Any is legally enough. To use it or not use it, is voluntary on the part of the public." III. The copyrights were properly taken out by the plaintiffs in their trade names of "The Courier Co." and "The Courier Litho. Co.," and the plaintiffs have the right to sue in their individual names for infringement of these copyrights. That copartners in business, who are the proprietors of a  copyrighted article, may take out a copyright in either of their copartnership or trade names, is well settled. Scribner v. Clark, 50 Fed. Rep. 473; affirmed as Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488; Callaghaan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617; Scribner v. Allen Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 854; Werckmeister v. Springer Lith. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 808; Rock v. Lazarus, Law Rep. 15 Eq. Cases, 104; Weldon v. Dicks, Law Rep. 10 Ch. Div. 247; Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno) Home Packing Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 845. Finally, the plaintiffs were the "proprietors" of each of the copyrighted prints, and as such were authorized to take out the copyrights by the express language of the copyright law, Rev. Stat., sec. 4952, which includes "proprietors" with "authors, inventors (and) designers." Colliery Eng. Co. v. United etc., Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 152. No formal assignment of the right to a copyright is necessary. Consent is sufficient to constitute one the proprietor. Carte v. Evans, 27 Fed. Rep. 861. See also Schumacher v. Schwencke, 25 Fed. Rep. 466; Little v. Gould, Fed. Cases, No. 8395 ; Lawrence v. Dana, Fed. Cases, No. 8136 ; Sweet v. Benning, 81 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 459; 16 Com. Bench Rep. 459; Gill v. United States, 160 U. S. 426, 435. All of the pictures, and particularly the Statuary Act Design, were copyrighted before publication. The law is well settled that there was no publication of these prints when they were shipped from Buffalo on April 11, or when they were received by MHr. Wallace at Peru, Indiana, on or about April 15. There was no publication until they were exposed to the general public, so that the public, without discrimination as to persons, might enjoy them. This must have been some time after April 15, when the last copyright was surely completed. Publication is a legal conclusion which follows from certain acts. Drone on Copyright, p. 291 ; Jewelers -Mere. Agency v: Jewelers Pub. Co., 84 Hun (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 12, 16; Callag7ian v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617; Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 764; Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488; Garland v. Gemmill, 14 Canada Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 De Gex & Smale, 652; 1 MacNaghten & Gorden; 47 Eng. Ch. Rep. 25. The representation of a play upon the stage regularly at a theatre, does not constitute a publication. Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Massachusetts, 32; Palmer v. De Witt, 47 NI. Y. 532; Boucicault v. Hart, Fed. Cases, No. 1692. The use by a teacher of his manuscript and allowing pupils to make copies for the purpose of obtaining his instruction, does not amount to a publication. Bartlett v. Crittenden, Fed. Cases, Nos. 1076 and 1082. The printing of copies of an operetta and distributing them to artists, for private use only in learning their parts, and the representing of the operetta on the stage, is not a publication. French v. Kreling, 63 Fed. Rep. 621; Reed v. Carusi, Fed. Cases, No. 11,642; Blume v. Spear, 30 Fed. Rep. 629; Exch. Tel. Co. v. Cent. News, Law Rep. 2 Oh. Div. 48. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on September 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Circus Posters and the History of Copyrighting Adverts 

Mark Twain's Speeches by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . JOAN OF ARC here JOAN OF ARC ADDRESS AT THE DINNER OF THE SOCIETY OF ILLUSTRATORS, GIVEN AT
          THE ALDINE ASSOCIATION CLUB, DECEMBER 22, 1905

          Just before Mr. Clemens made his speech, a young woman attired
          as Joan of Arc, with a page bearing her flag of battle,
          courtesied reverently and tendered Mr. Clemens a laurel wreath
          on a satin pillow.  He tried to speak, but his voice failed
          from excess of emotion. “I thank you!” he finally exclaimed,
          and, pulling himself together, he began his speech. Now there is an illustration [pointing to the retreating Joan of Arc]. That is exactly what I wanted—precisely what I wanted—when I was describing to myself Joan of Arc, after studying her history and her character for twelve years diligently. That was the product—not the conventional Joan of Arc. Wherever you find the conventional Joan of Arc in history she is an offence to anybody who knows the story of that wonderful girl. Why, she was—she was almost supreme in several details. She had a marvellous intellect; she had a great heart, had a noble spirit, was absolutely pure in her character, her feeling, her language, her words, her everything—she was only eighteen years old. Now put that heart into such a breast—eighteen years old—and give it that masterly intellect which showed in the face, and furnish it with that almost god-like spirit, and what are you going to have? The conventional Joan of Arc? Not by any means. That is impossible. I cannot comprehend any such thing as that. You must have a creature like that young and fair and beautiful girl we just saw. And her spirit must look out of the eyes. The figure should be—the figure should be in harmony with all that, but, oh, what we get in the conventional picture, and it is always the conventional picture! I hope you will allow me to say that your guild, when you take the conventional, you have got it at second-hand. Certainly, if you had studied and studied, then you might have something else as a result, but when you have the common convention you stick to that. You cannot prevail upon the artist to do it; he always gives you a Joan of Arc—that lovely creature that started a great career at thirteen, but whose greatness arrived when she was eighteen; and merely because she was a girl he can not see the divinity in her, and so he paints a peasant, a coarse and lubberly figure—the figure of a cotton-bale, and he clothes that in the coarsest raiment of the peasant region just like a fish woman, her hair cropped short like a Russian peasant, and that face of hers, which should be beautiful and which should radiate all the glories which are in the spirit and in her heart that expression in that face is always just the fixed expression of a ham. But now Mr. Beard has intimated a moment ago, and so has Sir Purdon-Clarke also, that the artist, the illustrator, does not often get the idea of the man whose book he is illustrating. Here is a very remarkable instance of the other thing in Mr. Beard, who illustrated a book of mine. You may never have heard of it. I will tell you about it now—A Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Now, Beard got everything that I put into that book and a little more besides. Those pictures of Beard’s in that book—oh, from the first page to the last is one vast sardonic laugh at the trivialities, the servilities of our poor human race, and also at the professions and the insolence of priest-craft and king-craft—those creatures that make slaves of themselves and have not the manliness to shake it off. Beard put it all in that book. I meant it to be there. I put a lot of it there and Beard put the rest. That publisher of mine in Hartford had an eye for the pennies, and he saved them. He did not waste any on the illustrations. He had a very good artist—Williams—who had never taken a lesson in drawing. Everything he did was original. The publisher hired the cheapest wood-engraver he could find, and in my early books you can see a trace of that. You can see that if Williams had had a chance he would have made some very good pictures. He had a good heart and good intentions. I had a character in the first book he illustrated—The Innocents Abroad. That was a boy seventeen or eighteen years old—Jack Van Nostrand—a New York boy, who, to my mind, was a very remarkable creature. He and I tried to get Williams to understand that boy, and make a picture of Jack that would be worthy of Jack. Jack was a most singular combination. He was born and reared in New York here. He was as delicate in his feelings, as clean and pure and refined in his feelings as any lovely girl that ever was, but whenever he expressed a feeling he did it in Bowery slang, and it was a most curious combination—that delicacy of his and that apparent coarseness. There was no coarseness inside of Jack at all, and Jack, in the course of seventeen or eighteen years, had acquired a capital of ignorance that was marvellous—ignorance of various things, not of all things. For instance, he did not know anything about the Bible. He had never been in Sunday-school. Jack got more out of the Holy Land than anybody else, because the others knew what they were expecting, but it was a land of surprises to him. I said in the book that we found him watching a turtle on a log, stoning that turtle, and he was stoning that turtle because he had read that “The song of the turtle was heard in the land,” and this turtle wouldn’t sing. It sounded absurd, but it was charged on Jack as a fact, and as he went along through that country he had a proper foil in an old rebel colonel, who was superintendent and head engineer in a large Sunday-school in Wheeling, West Virginia. That man was full of enthusiasm wherever he went, and would stand and deliver himself of speeches, and Jack would listen to those speeches of the colonel and wonder. Jack had made a trip as a child almost across this continent in the first overland stage-coach. That man’s name who ran that line of stages—well, I declare that name is gone. Well, names will go. Halliday—ah, that’s the name—Ben Halliday, your uncle [turning to Mr. Carnegie]. That was the fellow—Ben Halliday—and Jack was full of admiration at the prodigious speed that that line of stages made—and it was good speed—one hundred and twenty-five miles a day, going day and night, and it was the event of Jack’s life, and there at the Fords of the Jordan the colonel was inspired to a speech (he was always making a speech), so he called us up to him. He called up five sinners and three saints. It has been only lately that Mr. Carnegie beatified me. And he said: “Here are the Fords of the Jordan—a monumental place. At this very point, when Moses brought the children of Israel through—he brought the children of Israel from Egypt through the desert you see there—he guarded them through that desert patiently, patiently during forty years, and brought them to this spot safe and sound. There you see—there is the scene of what Moses did.” And Jack said: “Moses who?” “Oh,” he says, “Jack, you ought not to ask that! Moses, the great law-giver! Moses, the great patriot! Moses, the great warrior! Moses, the great guide, who, as I tell you, brought these people through these three hundred miles of sand in forty years, and landed them safe and sound.” Jack said: “There’s nothin’ in that three hundred miles in forty years. Ben Halliday would have snaked ’em through in thirty—six hours.” Well, I was speaking of Jack’s innocence, and it was beautiful. Jack was not ignorant on all subjects. That boy was a deep student in the history of Anglo-Saxon liberty, and he was a patriot all the way through to the marrow. There was a subject that interested him all the time. Other subjects were of no concern to Jack, but that quaint, inscrutable innocence of his I could not get Williams to put into the picture. Yes, Williams wanted to do it. He said: “I will make him as innocent as a virgin.” He thought a moment, and then said, “I will make him as innocent as an unborn virgin;” which covered the ground. I was reminded of Jack because I came across a letter to-day which is over thirty years old that Jack wrote. Jack was doomed to consumption. He was very long and slim, poor creature; and in a year or two after he got back from that excursion, to the Holy Land he went on a ride on horseback through Colorado, and he did not last but a year or two. He wrote this letter, not to me, but to a friend of mine; and he said: “I have ridden horseback”—this was three years after—“I have ridden horseback four hundred miles through a desert country where you never see anything but cattle now and then, and now and then a cattle station—ten miles apart, twenty miles apart. Now you tell Clemens that in all that stretch of four hundred miles I have seen only two books—the Bible and ‘Innocents Abroad’. Tell Clemens the Bible was in a very good condition.” I say that he had studied, and he had, the real Saxon liberty, the acquirement of our liberty, and Jack used to repeat some verses—I don’t know where they came from, but I thought of them to-day when I saw that letter—that that boy could have been talking of himself in those quoted lines from that unknown poet: “For he had sat at Sidney’s feet
               And walked with him in plain apart,
               And through the centuries heard the beat
               Of Freedom’s march through Cromwell’s heart.” And he was that kind of a boy. He should have lived, and yet he should not have lived, because he died at that early age—he couldn’t have been more than twenty—he had seen all there was to see in the world that was worth the trouble of living in it; he had seen all of this world that is valuable; he had seen all of this world that was illusion, and illusion, is the only valuable thing in it. He had arrived at that point where presently the illusions would cease and he would have entered upon the realities of life, and God help the man that has arrived at that point. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). Mark Twain's Speeches. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3188/pg3188-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

JOAN OF ARC

Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S Court Filing, retrieved on September 27, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 3 of 3. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Opinion of DOUGLAS, J Opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, in which MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs. An important constitutional question underlies this case-a question which was stirred on oral argument but not treated in the briefs. It is whether these statuettes of dancing figures may be copyrighted. Congress has provided that "works of art," "models or designs for works of art," and "reproductions of a work of art" may be copyrighted (17 U. S. C. § 5); and the Court holds that these statuettes are included in the words "works of art." But may statuettes be granted the monopoly of the copyright? Article I, § 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, 1y securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings .. " The power is thus circumscribed: it allows a monopoly to be granted only to "authors" for their "writings." Is a sculptor an "author" and is his statue a "writing" within the meaning of the Constitution? We have never decided the question. 111 U. S. 53, held that a photograph could be copyrighted. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, o., 188 U. S. 239, held that chromolithographs to be used as adverti§ements for a circus were "pictorial illustrations" within the meaning of the copyright laws. Broad language was used in the latter case, ". . . a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man's alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the* words of the act." 188 U. S., at 250. But the constitutional range of the meaning of "writings" in the field of art was not in issue either in the Bleistein case nor in , 344 U. S. 228, recently here on a writ of certiorari limited to a question of damages: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing C Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts At times the Court has on its own initiative considered and decided constitutional issues not raised, argued, or briefed by the parties. Such, for example, was the case of 294 U. S. 648, 667, in which the Court decided the constitutionality of § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act though the question was not noticed by any party. We could do the same here and decide the question here and now. This case, however, is not a pressing one, there being no urgency for a decision. Moreover the constitutional materials are quite meager (see Fenning, The Origin of the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution,, 17 Geo. L. J. 109 (1929)); and much research is needed. Continental Bank v. Rock Island R. Co., The interests involved in the category of "works of art," as used in the copyright law, are considerable. The Copyright Office has supplied us with a long list of such articles which have been copyrighted-statuettes, book ends, clocks, lamps, door knockers, candlesticks, inkstands, chandeliers, piggy banks, sundials, salt and pepper shakers, fish bowls, casseroles, and ash trays. Perhaps these are all "writings" in the constitutional sense. But to me, at least, they are not obviously so. It is time that we came to the problem full face. I would accordingly put the case down for reargument. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case No. 228 retrieved on September 27, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Stories, News & Mentions about SARCON

Sarcon’s Stories on HackerNoon