DeJonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co.
Headline: Court affirms that each repeated decorative image on a printed strip must carry its own copyright notice, making single notice on repeated holiday wrapping or wallpaper insufficient.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower courts and held that every reproduction of a copyrighted painting, including each repeated square on a continuous printed strip, must bear its own statutory copyright notice.
- Requires a copyright notice on each repeated image in a printed sheet.
- Makes a single notice on a sheet insufficient for repeated decorative designs.
- Affects makers of wallpaper, wrapping paper, and repeat-pattern printers.
Summary
Background
An artist who made a small water‑color painting of holly, mistletoe, and spruce sued to stop others from copying it. The painting was arranged so it could be repeated in square units and was printed twelve times across long strips of paper that resembled wallpaper or holiday wrapping. Each long strip carried a single copyright notice, and the artist argued that one notice on the strip covered all the repeated squares.
Reasoning
The lower courts assumed the painting had been copied and concluded the notice must appear on every reproduced square. Justice Holmes’s opinion agreed. The Court said the thing protected was the single painting reproduced in each square, and every reproduction must bear the statutory copyright notice. Repeating the design across a sheet did not turn the sheet into one larger copyrighted work for notice purposes. The opinion emphasized that repeating an image many times on one sheet does not give it broader privileges — the same limits apply even if the image were a famous masterpiece.
Real world impact
The ruling requires printers, designers, and sellers of repeated-pattern paper to place copyright notices on each repeated image or risk losing enforcement. It treats each repeated square as a separate reproduction for notice rules, not as a single unified artwork with one notice. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decree because the notices were not repeated on each square, ending the case against the infringer under the law as it stood.
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?