Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Douglas v. Cunningham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1935 United States Supreme Court case
Douglas v. Cunningham
Argued January 18, 1935
Decided February 4, 1935
Full case nameDouglas v. Cunningham
Citations294U.S.207 (more)
55 S. Ct. 365; 79L. Ed. 862; 24U.S.P.Q. 153
Case history
PriorCunningham v. Douglas, 72F.2d536 (1st Cir. 1934);cert. granted,293 U.S. 551 (1934).
Holding
The statute allowed an award of $5,000 instead of a copyright infringement damages calculation based on the newspaper's circulation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1909

Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 U.S. 207 (1935), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held theCopyright Act of 1909 allowed an award of $5,000 instead of acopyright infringement damages calculation based on the newspaper's circulation.[1]

Background

[edit]

Douglas wrote an original story which was accepted, copyrighted, and published byThe American Mercury. The rights in the story under the copyright were assigned to Douglas. Thereafter, Cunningham wrote for the Post Publishing Company, and the latter published in some 384,000 copies of a Sunday edition ofThe Boston Post, an article which was a clear appropriation of Douglas's story.[1]

Douglas sued inequity in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, chargingcopyright infringement, praying aninjunction, an award of profits and damages, or, "in lieu of actual damages or profits, such damages as to this Court shall appear to be just and proper within the provisions of the Act of Congress in such cases made and provided."[1]

Testimony was presented with respect to the value of the story, but, at the close of the trial, the petitioners admitted inability to prove actual damages. The Publishing Company acted innocently in accepting the article from Cunningham, and the latter testified that he had procured the material for its from an acquaintance, believed the facts related to him were actual happenings, and was ignorant of Douglas' production. The trial judge ruled that no actual damage had been shown, but, in lieu thereof, granted the petitioners $5,000 and a counsel fee. Upon appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained an assignment of error which asserted the judge had abused his discretion in making the award, reversed the decree, and set the damages at $250.[1]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdDouglas v. Cunningham, 294 U.S.207 (1935).

External links

[edit]

This article incorporates written opinion of aUnited States federal court. As awork of theU.S. federal government, the text is in thepublic domain.

Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Stub icon

This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theHughes Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_v._Cunningham&oldid=1311190870"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp