To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Callaghan v. Myers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Callaghan v. Myers
Argued November 8–9, 1888
Decided December 17, 1888
Full case nameCallaghan v. Myers
Citations128 U.S. 617 (more)
9 S. Ct. 177; 32 L. Ed. 547
Holding
Arrangements of public domain records can represent copyrightable intellectual effort.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
Stanley Matthews · Horace Gray
Samuel Blatchford · Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityBlatchford, joined by unanimous

Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    3 837 796
    20 954
    386
  • Britain's Got Talent 2015 S09E02 Henry Gallagher 12 Year Old Sings His Own Amazing Original Song
  • Hans Zimmer vs. Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike - He's A Pirate
  • My Favorites From This Week #53 Set

Transcription

Background

The firm of Eugene B. Myers & Chandler, composed of Myers and Horace P. Chandler, purchased the copyright of the arrangement of a number of Illinois Supreme Court records compiled by Norman L. Freeman. It printed those works as the Illinois Reports Volumes 32 to 38 from 1865 to 1867. Myers alone held the copyright to Freeman's arrangements of Volumes 39 to 46 and printed them as well.

The conflict began when Myers made some changes to the arrangement of Volumes 37 and 38 and published them by observing the procedure to procure copyright on these alternative works. The defendants, Callaghan & Company, offered to purchase licenses to publish the new versions of Volumes 37 and 38 but would not pay Myers's price. Instead, they made very minor changes to Myers's version, copied essentially verbatim the portions of the book that were actually copyrightable, and published it as their own work. Myers sued them for copyright infringement, and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Court upheld earlier case law, such as Banks v. Manchester, which state that court documents belonged to the public domain. In regards to the case at hand, it ruled that the elements of the books that organized or summarized those judicial works constitute intellectual effort. Therefore, Myers held the copyright because he followed the copyrighting procedures in all cases except one. The Court found that the copies of Volume 32 that were required for formally copyrighting the work had arrived late and so that volume was not copyrighted. Nonetheless, the plaintiff, Myers, was entitled to compensation in full for the infringement damages if he chose to collect them.[1]

References

  1. ^ Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888).

External links


This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 01:55
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.