Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 59, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 March 1910 — IN FAVOR OF REAL AUTHOR. [ARTICLE]

IN FAVOR OF REAL AUTHOR.

nrew York Court’. Rating la Cane of a Plagiarized Short Story. A decision of Interest to authors was handed down by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, says the New York Times. Writers whose copyrighted stories are appropriated without their consent by successful playwrights are entitled to all the profits of the plays, the court holds. The decision was in the suit which Henry J. W. Dam, a writer, who has since died, brought four years ago against the Kirk La Shelle Theatrical Company, when it was producing "The Heir to the Hoorah” all over the country with great success. Mr. Dam wrote a short story called “The Transmogrification of Dan” some yiears ago. It was about a prospector, who discovers a rich mine. Becoming wealthy he marries into society and lets himself be bullied and despised by his wife and mother-in-law, until his son is born: Then he recovers lrtff self-fekpect and dignity through the responsibilities of fatherhood. Mr. Dam sold it for SBS to the Smart Set, which copyrighted and printed it. At ‘ a theater several years later, Mr. Dam declared, he was considerably surprised to recognize his little eight-page story in Paul Armstrong’s successful play, “The Heir to the Hoorah.” Mr. Dam got the Smart Set to assign him its interest in the copyright. Then he started suit against the Kirk La Shelle company. Andrew Gilhooley, of 5 Benkman street, Mr. Dam’s lawyer, contended that when a playwright dramatizes ’a copyrighted story without the consent of the author all the profits realized from the play should be awarded to the author, even though the dramatist may have Incorporated additional matter. After Mr. Dam’s death the suit was carried on by his widow, Dorothy Dorr, the actress. Oddly enough, Mr. Dam wrote his story, which was founded on inspiration of fatherhood, not long after the birth of his own son. In its decision .yesterday the United States Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the infringement of the copyright consisted of the use of the theme of the story, the change produced in the character of a husband by becoming a father. “A playwright,” says the court, “who appropriates the theme of another’s story cannot, in our opinion, escape the Chai-ge of infringement by adding to or slightly varying Its incidents even if none of the language of the story is used in the play ’ “In our opinion, the playwright deliberately appropriated the story and dramatized it.” As to compensation for the infringement, the court says in substance that, to adjudge all the play’s profits to the author of the story, who took no financial risks in producing the play, seems at first unjust, hut the author of a story could not prove how much he was damaged or how much of the profits he deserved. Neither could he follow the theatrical company all over the counfiry, seeking relief through injunctions. Making the theatrical company accountable for all the profits was the only way to keep copyrighted but undramatized books and stories from being appropriated. The complainant was entitled to recover the whole profits from the play.