Carte v. Duff, New York (1885)

Source: The University of Texas Tarlton Law Library Stack 216-217: Carte v. Duff, 25 F. 183 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1885).

Citation:
Carte v. Duff, New York (1885), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Record-ID: us_1885

Permanent link: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/record/us_1885

Full title:
Carte v. Duff, (The Mikado case) 25 F. 183 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1885)

Full title original language:
N/A

Abstract:
A court decision that rejected a claim that public performance of a musical work constituted copyright infringement. The decision reflected the traditional approach that limited copyright infringement to reproduction in print.

Commentary: No commentaries for this record.

Bibliography:
  • Sanjek, Russell. American Popular Music and Its Business: The First Four Hundred Years. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

  • Rosen, Zvi. 'The Twilight of the Opera Pirates: A Prehistory of the Exclusive Right of Public Performance for Musical Compositions.' 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 1157 (2007).

  • Carroll, Michael. 'The Struggle for Music Copyright.' 57 Fla. L. Rev. 907 (2005).


Related documents in this database:
1856: Copyright Act Amendment

Author: N/A

Publisher: N/A

Year: 1885

Location: New York

Language: English

Source: The University of Texas Tarlton Law Library Stack 216-217: Carte v. Duff, 25 F. 183 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1885).

Persons referred to:
Blatchford, Samuel
Browne, Causten
Carte, Richard D'Oyly
Choate, Joseph Hodges
Dittenhoefer, Abram Jesse
Drone, Eaton Sylvester
Duff, James C.
Gilbert, Sir William Schwenck
Sullivan, Sir Arthur Seymour
Tracy, George Lowell
Wallace, William James

Places referred to:
England
Great Britain
London
New York

Cases referred to:
Boosey v. Fairlie (1877), 7 Ch. Div. 307, S.C. 4 App. Cas. 711
Carte v. Duff (The Mikado Case), 25 F. 183, 23 Blatchf. 347 (C.C.N.Y. 1885)
Daly v. Palmer, 6 F. Cas. 1132 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1868)
Keene v. Kimball (1860), 16 Gray 546
Planché v. Braham (1837), 8 Car. & P. 68
Reade v. Conquest (1861) 9 CB (NS) 755
Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 Hem. & M. 747

Institutions referred to:
Library of Congress
New York District Court
Standard Theatre, New York
U.S. Congress

Legislation:
Dramatic Literary Property Act, 1833, 3 & 4 Will.IV, c.15
U.S. Copyright Amendment Act 1856, 11 Stat. 138

Keywords:
Anglo-American
arrangement
attribute, obligation to
derivatives
dramatico-musical works, protected subject matter
fair use
formalities
manuscript
music, protected subject matter
originality
public performance

Responsible editor: Oren Bracha


Our Partners


Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.


Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK