Legal Opinion
Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 26, 1924PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The copyright to the composition “Dardanella” covered the piece as a whole; there were not several copyrights for each part of it. Nevertheless the plagiarism of any substantial component part, either in melody or accompaniment, would be the proper subject of such a suit as this. To sustain it, however, more must appear than the mere similarity or even identity, of the supposed infringement with the part in question. In this lies one distinction between a patent and a copyright. One may infringe a patent by the innocent reproduction of the machine patented,…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Haas v. Leo Feist, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- Edward Thompson Co. v. American Law Book Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
- Eichel v. MarcinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1913
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Mazer v. SteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Desny v. WilderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.