Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.
Headline: Court allows copyright protection for circus advertising posters, reversing lower courts and making it easier for artists and printers to stop others copying commercial posters.
Holding: The Court held that chromolithograph advertising posters can be original pictorial works eligible for copyright protection, reversed the lower courts’ rulings, and sent the case back for a new trial on ownership and rights.
- Allows artists and printers to seek copyright for commercial posters, including circus advertisements.
- Reverses lower courts and sends case back for jury trial on ownership and rights.
- Clarifies that advertising use alone does not bar copyright protection.
Summary
Background
A printing company and a related firm created three colorful chromolithograph posters to advertise a circus owned by a man named Wallace. Another lithograph company copied reduced versions of those posters, and the original printers sued for copyright infringement after trial courts directed a verdict for the defendant.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether advertising posters can be protected as pictorial works connected with the fine arts. Justice Holmes said even modest commercial pictures can show originality and that copying a published picture is different from copying the original scene. He found evidence that the plaintiffs’ employees made the designs and that copyrights were registered, concluded the posters could be protected, reversed the lower courts, and ordered a new trial on factual issues. Holmes also warned that judges should not act as final arbiters of artistic taste.
Real world impact
The decision allows artists and printing firms to argue that commercial posters, including circus advertisements, may qualify for copyright protection. It affects advertisers, printers, and anyone who reproduces commercial images. Because the Court sent the case back for a new trial, questions about ownership and any contract rights will be decided by a jury, so the ultimate outcome is not final. The ruling emphasizes that commercial use or success does not automatically bar copyright.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Harlan (joined by Justice McKenna) dissented, arguing that a mere advertisement with no intrinsic artistic value should not fall within the constitutional power to protect the useful arts and therefore should not receive copyright.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?