Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., District Court Decision, Kentucky (1899)

Source: The University of Texas School of Law Tarlton Law Library MICROFILM CABINETS 19-21: Records and briefs of the United States Supreme Court.

Citation:
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., District Court Decision, Kentucky (1899), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Record-ID: us_1899

Permanent link: https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_us_1899

Full title:
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., United States Circuit Court District of Kentucky Decision

Full title original language:
N/A

Abstract:
The District Court decision in Bleistein v. Donaldson. The decision that was later reversed by the Supreme Court denied copyright protection to circus advertisements.

Commentary: No commentaries for this record.

Bibliography:
  • Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer. 'The Story of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company: Originality as a Vehicle for Copyright Inclusivity.' In Intellectual Property Stories, ed. Jane C. Ginsburg and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss. New York: Foundation Press, 2006.


Related documents in this database:
1900: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., Circuit Court Decision
1902: Bleistein's Brief
1902: Bleistein: Donaldson Lithographing Co. Brief
1902: Bleistein: Three Posters
1903: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.
1903: Bleistein: Cartoon

Author: N/A

Publisher: N/A

Year: 1899

Location: Kentucky

Language: English

Source: The University of Texas School of Law Tarlton Law Library MICROFILM CABINETS 19-21: Records and briefs of the United States Supreme Court.

Persons referred to:


Bleistein, George
Evans, Walter
Finnell, Joseph C.
Fleming, Edwin
Rudolf, John A.
Wallace, Benjamin E.
Wilcox, Ansley

Places referred to:
Buffalo, New York
Covington, Kentucky

Cases referred to:
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (C.C.D. KY. 1899)
Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Correspondence Schools Co., 94 F. 152 (C.C.D. N.Y. 1899)
Lawrence v. Dana, 15 F. Cas. 26, 51 (C.C.D. Mass. 1869)
Scribner v. Clark, 50 F. 473 (C.C.D. Ill. 1888)
Werckmeister v. Pierce & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 63 F. 445 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894)

Institutions referred to:
Kentucky District Court
Library of Congress
U.S. Congress

Legislation:
U.S. Constitutional Copyright Clause 1789
U.S. International Copyright Act, 1891 (Chace Act)

Keywords:
advertising
constitution, US
copy
creativity
employer/employee relations
engravings, protected subject matter
formalities
immoral works
ownership, corporate
penalties
transferability

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) is co-published by Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK and CREATe, School of Law, University of Glasgow, 10 The Square, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK