111 U.S. at 57
In January 1882, Napoleon Sarony, a photographer operating in New York City, entered into an agreement with Oscar Wilde and created a photograph titled "Oscar Wilde No. 18."1
Sarony posed Wilde in front of the camera, selected and arranged the costume, draperies, and accessories, arranged the subject for graceful outlines, disposed the light and shade, and suggested the desired expression, producing the image entirely from his own original mental conception.2
Subsequently, the Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company, a lithographer also based in New York, produced and sold approximately 85,000 copies of the photograph without authorization.3 Sarony had complied with all statutory requirements for copyright, including affixing the notice "Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony" to each copy.4
Sarony then commenced an action at law against the lithographic company in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violation of his copyright.5 With a jury waived, the court made findings of fact and entered judgment in Sarony's favor for $600 in penalties for the plates and copies sold, plus $10 for copies in possession, under section 4965 of the Revised Statutes.6
The lithographic company brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, challenging the constitutionality of copyright protection for photographs and the sufficiency of the copyright notice.7
Whether Congress possesses constitutional authority to extend copyright protection to photographs?8
The Constitution 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.' This power extends to photographs that represent original intellectual conceptions of the author, as Congress has long interpreted 'writings' to include works giving visible expression to ideas through printing, engraving, and similar processes.9
Yes. The eighth section of the first article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing to authors the exclusive right to their writings.10
The findings establish that Sarony, under an agreement with Oscar Wilde, became the author of the photograph by making it entirely from his own original mental conception.11
He gave visible form to this conception by posing Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other accessories, arranging the subject to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, and suggesting and evoking the desired expression.12
These findings demonstrate that the photograph is a useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture that qualifies as an original work of art.13
The construction placed upon the Constitution by the first Congress in the 1790 act, which included maps and charts as subjects of copyright, is entitled to great weight, and photographs cannot be distinguished from other prints and engravings that have long been protected.14
Section 4952 of the Revised Statutes places photographs in the same class as books, maps, charts, engravings, and paintings for which copyright may be obtained.15
Therefore, Congress has the constitutional authority to extend copyright protection to photographs such as the one created by Sarony.16
Congress possesses constitutional authority to extend copyright protection to photographs that embody original intellectual conceptions of the author.17
Whether the notice "Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony" satisfies the statutory requirements for copyright notice?18
The statute requires that notice of the copyright be given by placing upon each copy, in some visible shape, the name of the author, the existence of the claim of exclusive right, and the date at which this right was obtained.19
Yes. The object of the statute is to give notice of the copyright to the public by placing upon each copy the name of the author, the existence of the claim of exclusive right, and the date at which the right was obtained.20
Sarony affixed the notice "Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony" to each copy of the photograph.21
This notice clearly shows that a copyright is asserted, the date of which is 1882, and designates the author as Sarony.22
When the initial letter of the Christian name is given, the notice is complete and sufficient under the act of Congress.23
The second assignment of error regarding the sufficiency of the notice is therefore without merit.24
The notice "Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony" satisfies the statutory requirements for copyright notice.25