Wheaton v. Peters - 33 U.S. 591 (1834)

Rule:

A renewal of the term of 14 years, can only be obtained by having the title page recorded with the clerk, and the record published on the page next to that of the title, and public notice given within six months before the expiration of the first term.

Facts:

Henry Wheaton, the author of the twelve books or volumes of the reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States, sold and transferred his copyright to Matthew Carey. Before the publication, Carey deposited a printed copy of the title page of the volume in the clerk’s office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where he resided. The book was recorded by the clerk according to law, and a copy of the record was caused by Carey to be inserted at full length in the page immediately following the title of the book. Carey benefitted from the provisions of the acts of Congress of the United States, passed on May 31, 1790 and April 29, 1802, which had for their purpose, the security of the authors and proprietors to the copyrights of books. Subsequently, Carey conveyed the copyright in the said volume to the firm Matthew Carey and Sons, which later transferred the copyright to the complainant, Robert Donaldson, as agent of Wheaton. The latter arrangement was made with the expectation of a renewal of the right of Wheaton under the provisions of the acts of congress. Within six months before the expiration of the first term, Donaldson deposited a printed copy of the title of the said volume in the clerk’s office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York, where the said Wheaton then resided; and caused the said title to be a second time recorded in the said clerk's office; and also caused a copy of the said record to be a second time published in a newspaper printed in the said city of New York, for the space of four weeks, and delivered a copy of the said book to the secretary of state of the United States; and that all things were done agreeably to the provision of the said act of congress of May 31st, 1790, and within six months before the expiration of the said term of fourteen years. Thereafter, Wheaton and Donaldson alleged that the defendants have published and sold a volume which contained all the reports of the cases in the first volume of Wheaton’s book. According to the defendants, such publication and sale was a direct violation of the complainants’ rights. Complainants, asserting a perpetual and exclusive right to the property, prayed for an injunction. The District Court dismissed the complainants’ complaint, holding that the complainants have not entitled themselves to the aid and benefit of the statutes of the United States, for the protection of authors.

Issue:

Did the complainants comply with the requisites of the acts of the Congress of the United States, thereby entitling them to the protection of the same?

Answer:

Further investigation is necessary.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that under Section of the Act of May 30, 1970, no person shall be entitled to the benefit of the act unless he shall first deposit a printed copy of the title in the clerk’s office, and such author or proprietor, shall within two months from the date thereof, cause a copy of said record to be published in one or more of the newspapers printed in the United States, for the space of four weeks. Moreover, section 4 of the same Act provided that within six months after publication, the author shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the secretary of state, a copy of the publication, to be preserved in the latter’s office. The Court also noted that a renewal of the term of 14 years, can only be obtained by having the title page recorded with the clerk, and the record published on the page next to that of the title, and public notice given within six months before the expiration of the first term. In the case at bar, the Court held that further investigation was necessary to determine whether complainants had shown substantial compliance with every legal requisite needed to assert their rights. According to the Court, certain requisites, not prerequisites, were enjoined on the author in order to assert a right to the works.