25 Mazer vs. Stein

CASE: MAZER vs.
STEIN AUTHOR: Talaman

[March 8, 1954] 347 U.S. 201 (1954) NOTES:
TOPIC: Copyright; Protected Works and Boundary
Problems
FACTS:
 Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric lamps.
 One of the respondents created original works of sculpture from the models of which china statuettes
were made. The statuettes were used as bases for fully equipped electric lamps which respondents sold.
 Respondents then submitted the statuettes, without any lamp components added, for registration under
the copyright law as “works of art” or reproductions thereof. Certificates were issued.
 Thereafter, the statuettes were sold in quantity throughout the country both as lamp bases and as
statuettes.
 Petitioners are partners, and, like respondents, make and sell lamps. Without authorization, they copied
the statuettes, embodied them in lamps, and sold them.
 Consequently, Respondents sued Petitioners for copyright infringement in Maryland.
 District Court dismissed the complaint.
 CA reversed stating “A subsequent utilization of a work of art in an article of manufacture in no way
affects the right of the copyright owner to be protected against infringement of the work of art itself.”
 This Court granted Certiorari.
ISSUE(S): Whether the lamp statuettes can be copyrighted even if they are intended to be lamp bases.
HELD: YES. Nothing in the law prevents such action.

RATIO
1. The case requires an answer not as to a manufacturer's right to register a lamp base, but as to an artist's
right to copyright a work of art intended to be reproduced for lamp bases.
2. Petitioners question the validity of a copyright of a work of art for "mass production”. "Reproduction of
a work of art" does not mean to them unlimited reproduction. Their position is that a copyright does not
cover industrial reproduction of the protected article.
3. Petitioner urges that overlapping of patent and copyright legislation so as to give an author or inventor a
choice between patents and copyrights should not be permitted.
4. We do hold that the patentability of the statuettes, fitted as lamps or unfitted, does not bar
copyright as works of art. Neither the Copyright Statute nor any other says that, because a thing is
patentable, it may not be copyrighted. We should not so hold.
5. Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the
expression of the idea -- not the idea itself.
6. The copyright protects originality, rather than novelty or invention -- conferring only "the sole right of
multiplying copies." Absent copying, there can be no infringement of copyright.
7. Thus, respondents may not exclude others from using statuettes of human figures in table lamps; they
may only prevent use of copies of their statuettes as such or as incorporated in some other article.
8. Regulation § 202.8, supra, makes clear that artistic articles are protected in "form, but not their
mechanical or utilitarian aspects."
9. The dichotomy of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility, but art for the copyright and the
invention of original and ornamental design for design patents. We find nothing in the copyright statute
to support the argument that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for copyright bars or
invalidates its registration. We do not read such a limitation into the copyright law.
10. Nor do we think the subsequent registration of a work of art published as an element in a manufactured
article, is a misuse of the copyright. This is not different from the registration of a statuette and its later
embodiment in an industrial article.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

Patentability does not bar copyright.
The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the
conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare
through the talents of authors and inventors in "Science and useful Arts." Sacrificial days devoted to such
creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered.

25 Mazer vs. Stein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 Mazer vs. Stein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 Mazer vs. Stein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE: MAZER vs.

STEIN AUTHOR: Talaman

HELD: YES. Nothing in the law prevents such action.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

You might also like