Falk v. Donaldson, New York (1893)

Source: The University of Texas Tarlton Law Library Stack 216-217: Falk v. Donaldson, 57 F. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1893).

Falk v. Donaldson, New York (1893), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer,

Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Record-ID: us_1893

Permanent link:

Full title:
Falk v. Donaldson, 57 F. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1893)

Full title original language:

An early case involving copyright in a photograph. The court upheld the copyrightability of the photograph at issue against an originality challenge. It reached this conclusion by applying the Supreme Court's test from Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony that required the demonstration of original artistic contribution by the photographer.

Commentary: No commentaries for this record.

  • Panzer, Mary. Mathew Brady and the image of history. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press for the National Portrait Gallery, 1997.

  • Farley, Christine Haight. 'Copyright Law's Response to the Invention of Photography.' 65 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 385 (2004).

Related documents in this database:

Author: N/A

Publisher: N/A

Year: 1893

Location: New York

Language: English

Source: The University of Texas Tarlton Law Library Stack 216-217: Falk v. Donaldson, 57 F. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1893).

Persons referred to:
Bowen, Charles Synge Christopher
Chatterton, Thomas
Cotton, Sir Henry
Coxe, Alfred Conkling, Sr.
Donaldson, George W.
Donaldson, Robert M.
Drone, Eaton Sylvester
Falk, Benjamin J.
Falk, Isaac N.
Gilbert, Sir William Schwenck
Jenner, William A.
Marlowe, Julia
Mills, Charles K.
Sarony, Napoleon
Sullivan, Sir Arthur Seymour
Townsend, William Kneeland
Wetmore, Edmund
Wilde, Oscar Fingall O'Flahertie Wills

Places referred to:
New York

Cases referred to:
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1883)
Falk v. Brett Lithographing Co., 48 F. 678 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1891)
Falk v. Donaldson, 57 F. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1893)
Folsom v. Marsh (1841), Cir. Ct. Mass.
Gray v. Russell, 10 F.Cas. 1035 (C.C.D. Mass. 1839)
Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q.B.D. 627 (1883)
Turner v Robinson (1833) 5 B & Ad 789
Untermeyer v. Freund, 37 Fed. 342, 343 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1889)

Institutions referred to:
Bijou Theatre, New York
Library of Congress
New York District Court


authorship, theory of
copying, concept of
photography, protected subject matter

Responsible editor: Oren Bracha

Copyright History resource developed in partnership with:

Our Partners

Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.

Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) is co-published by Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK and CREATe, School of Law, University of Glasgow, 10 The Square, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK