Bleistein: Donaldson Lithographing Co. Brief, Washington D.C. (1902)

Source: University of Texas School of Law Tarlton Law Library MICROFILM CABINETS 19-21

Bleistein: Donaldson Lithographing Co. Brief, Washington D.C. (1902), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer,

Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Record-ID: us_1902a

Permanent link:

Full title:
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. United States, Brief of Defendant in Error

Full title original language:

Brief of defendant in error in Bleistein v. Donaldson submitted to the Supreme Court.

Commentary: No commentaries for this record.

  • Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer. 'The Story of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company: Originality as a Vehicle for Copyright Inclusivity.' In Intellectual Property Stories, ed. Jane C. Ginsburg and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss. New York: Foundation Press, 2006.

Related documents in this database:
1899: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., District Court Decision
1900: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., Circuit Court Decision
1902: Bleistein's Brief
1902: Bleistein: Three Posters
1903: Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.
1903: Bleistein: Cartoon

Author: N/A

Publisher: N/A

Year: 1902

Location: Washington D.C.

Language: English

Source: University of Texas School of Law Tarlton Law Library MICROFILM CABINETS 19-21

Persons referred to:
Bandlow, August
Bleistein, George
Bradley, Joseph Philo
Brett, William Baliol, 1st Viscount Esher
Brown, Henry Billings
Choate, Joseph Hodges
Cotton, Sir Henry
Kittredge, Edmund W.
Lurton, Horace Harmon
Miller, Samuel Freeman
Romilly, Samuel
Rudolf, John A.
Thompson, Smith
Wallace, Benjamin E.

Places referred to:
Buffalo, New York
Great Britain
Peru, Indiana

Cases referred to:
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)
Bimms v. Woodworth, 4 Wash. C.C. Rep. 48
Black et al. v. Henry G. Allen Co. (C.C.D. NY 1889)
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (C.C.D. KY. 1899)
Bolles v. Outing Co., 175 U.S. 262 (1899)
Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co. (1898)
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony 111 U.S. 53 (1883)
Clayton v. Stone, 5 F. Cases 999 (S.D.N.Y. 1829)
Cobbett v. Woodward (1872) L.R. 14. Eq 407
Dielman v. White, 102 F. 892 (C.C.D. Mass. 1900)
Dunlop v. United States, 165 U.S. 486 (1897)
Ehret v. Pierce, 10. F. 553, 554 (C.C.D. N.Y. 1880)
Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428 (1891)
J.L. Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 F. 316 (7th Cir. 1897)
Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q.B.D. 627 (1883)
Parton v. Prang, 3 Cliff. 537 (C. C. D. Mass. 1872)
Pollard v. Photograph Co., 40 Ch. Div., 345 (1888)
Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 2 Fed. 217 (C.C.D. N.Y. 1880)
Schumacher v. Wogram, 35 Fed. 210 (S.D. N.Y. 1888)
Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 US 123 (1889)
Yuengling v. Schile, 12 F. 97 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1882)

Institutions referred to:
Court of Chancery, England
Library of Congress
Patent Office, U.S. Department of State
U.S. Congress
U.S. Supreme Court

Fine Art Copyright Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict., c.68
U.S. Constitutional Copyright Clause 1789
U.S. International Copyright Act, 1891 (Chace Act)
U.S. Print and Label Law, Amendatory Act of June 18, 1874, 18 Stat. 78

authorship, theory of
constitution, US
employer/employee relations
engravings, protected subject matter
immoral works
ownership, corporate

Responsible editor: Oren Bracha

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