White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co.

Background

A music publisher (the assignee of composer Adam Geibel) sued a piano-player manufacturer over two songs published as sheet music, arguing that the maker’s perforated rolls reproduced and therefore copied the copyrighted melodies. The manufacturer sold “Apollo” player pianos and perforated rolls that, when run through the machines, produced the melodies. The record showed wide use of these devices in 1902: about 70,000–75,000 instruments and roughly one to one and a half million rolls made in the United States.

Reasoning

The core question was whether perforated rolls and similar mechanical records are legally “copies” of sheet music. The Court examined the copyright statute as written and past decisions, concluding that Congress protected tangible, visible copies filed with the Library of Congress — written or printed records in intelligible notation. Perforated rolls, the Court found, are parts of a machine and are not meant to be read by the eye as sheet music. Because the statute deals with concrete printed copies rather than abstract musical ideas or mechanical reproductions, the Court affirmed the lower courts and held the rolls were not copies under the law as it stood.

Real world impact

The decision lets manufacturers continue making and selling perforated rolls and player pianos without being held copyright infringers under the existing statute. It leaves publishers without a statutory remedy against such mechanical reproductions unless Congress changes the law. The ruling rests on the statute’s wording; Congress could expand protection if it chose.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Holmes agreed with the judgment but added that, on principle, mechanical reproductions logically should be treated as copies; his view urged that the statute’s scope, not the policy, limits protection.