Ferris v. Frohman
Headline: Court affirms that British authors retain common‑law U.S. rights in an unpublished play, blocks a U.S. copyright on a pirated adaptation, and prevents the adapter from producing the play here.
Holding: The Court held that British authors kept common‑law property rights in the United States for their unpublished play, so an American copyright on a pirated adaptation did not protect the adapter and the injunction was proper.
- Stops a pirated adaptation from being performed or sold in the United States.
- Says foreign authors keep U.S. common‑law rights in unpublished plays despite foreign performance.
- Prevents relying on a U.S. copyright that secures a pirated version of someone else’s work.
Summary
Background
British playwrights Charles Haddon Chambers and B. C. Stephenson wrote a play in London in 1894 and first performed it there on September 6, 1894. A London managing firm and New York producer Charles Frohman controlled production rights in the United States for a time, and Frohman later acquired further U.S. interests. The play was not copyrighted in the United States. An American adaptor, through George E. McFarlane, transferred his version to Richard Ferris, who copyrighted the adaptation in the United States and staged performances here. The Illinois courts found the original authors owned the play and that Ferris’s version was substantially identical and piratical.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether a public performance in England or British copyright laws destroyed the authors’ common‑law property rights in the United States. It concluded the British statutes governed only British territory and showed no intent to strip authors of common‑law protections elsewhere. U.S. copyright statutes in force at the time did not eliminate common‑law rights for unpublished plays first performed abroad. The Court held that public performance abroad did not amount to abandoning the play in the United States, so the authors kept their exclusive right to prevent unauthorized U.S. productions. Because Ferris’s work was pirated, his U.S. copyright could not protect him.
Real world impact
The ruling upholds the ability of foreign authors and their U.S. assignees to stop unauthorized American productions of unpublished plays, even after foreign performance. It prevents adapters from using a U.S. copyright to legitimize a pirated version and affirms the state court injunction against Ferris. The decision affirms that common‑law rights remain a basis for relief where statutory copyright does not apply.
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?