Citation network
Ferris Vs. Frohman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1912
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 424 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Ferris v. FrohmanSearch
-
U.S. 424 (1912) Ferris v. FrohmanSearch
-
of the Revised Statutes of the United States. This Court therefore has jurisdiction. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
McGuire v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Canal Co. v. PattenSearch
-
not within the provisions of 8 Anne, c. 19, which gave to authors the sole liberty of printing their books. Coleman v. WathenSearch
-
probable, though there is no express decision to that effect, that the court, following Donaldson v. BeckettSearch
-
include the first performance of a play. In Boucicault v. DelafieldSearch
-
it was held that, under the statute above quoted, there was no playright in England. To the same effect is Boucicault v. ChattertonSearch
-
and there was no convention under which the authors' work became public property in the United States. See Saxlehner v. EisnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
had a common law right of property in the play until it was publicly performed. Donaldson v. BeckettSearch
-
Prince Albert v. StrangeSearch
-
Jefferys v. BooseySearch
-
And they were entitled to protection against its unauthorized use here as well as in England. Wheaton v. PetersSearch
-
Bartlett v. CrittendenSearch
-
Crowe v. AikenSearch
-
Palmer v. DeWittSearch
-
to secure to the author of a copyrighted play the sole right to its performance after it had been printed. Boucicault v. FoxSearch
-
of statute. At common law, the public performance of the play is not an abandonment of it to the public use. Macklin v. RichardsonSearch
-
Morris v. KellySearch
-
Boucicault v. FoxSearch
-
Tompkins v. HalleckSearch
-
It has been said that the owner of a play cannot complain if the piece is reproduced from memory. Keene v. WheatleySearch
-
Keene v. KimballSearch
-
Gray 545. But the distinction is without sound basis, and has been repudiated. Tompkins v. HalleckSearch
-
in this country, it is not material that the first performance of the play in question took place in England. In Crowe v. AikenSearch
-
by the public representation, and the plaintiff had judgment. In the case last cited, and apparently in that of Crowe v. AikenSearch
-
to the plaintiff antedated the public performance, but neither decision was rested on that distinction. In Tompkins v. HalleckSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ferris v. FrohmanSearch
-
C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
Coleman v. WathenSearch
-
Donaldson v. BeckettSearch
-
In Boucicault v. DelafieldSearch
-
Boucicault v. ChattertonSearch
-
the United States. See Saxlehner v. EisnerSearch
-
England. Wheaton v. PetersSearch
-
Macklin v. RichardsonSearch
-
Keene v. WheatleySearch
-
England. In Crowe v. AikenSearch
-
of Crowe v. AikenSearch
-
In Tompkins v. HalleckSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial