Volume Three

Please download volume to read the PDF.

Volume 3

September 1955-July 1956

Volume 3, Issue  1 – September 1955

It begins with the Presidential Proclamation of the signing of the Universal Copyright Convention, and includes legislative and administrative developments; conventions, treaties and proclamations, judicial developments in the US, both federal and state; and a bibliography of books, treaties, law review articles, and copyright articles appearing in trade magazines.

There is also a notice from the Copyright Office related to the UCC, announcing the use of © for all classes, which serves the same purpose as “Copyright” and “Copr.”, with a note to see Section 19 and 20 for proper placement.  Now, you may use © name of the copyright owner and year of publication to satisfy formalities.  © by John Doe, 1955 or © 1955 by John Doe.  This applies only to those countries adhering to the UCC.  “Protection in non-contracting states will continue to be based on existing copyright arrangements between those countries and the United States.” (p. 4)  The notice also notes that copyright claimants for works in Class F to K (Mps, works of art, reproductions of works of art, scientific and technical models, and prints) may continue to use the short form from Section 19:  © name of the copyright owner, with no requirement of the date.

In the bibliography, Goldman’s The History of USA Copyright Law Revisions 1901-1954, Copyright Office,  is noted, as a summary of the attempts to make revisions to the 1909 Copyright Act.

Volume 3, Issue 2 – November 1955

This  follows the same structure as Issue 1. Under federal law, the question of whether widow and children for renewal purposes are part of the same class, Ballentine v. DeSylvia 106 U.S.Q.P. 346 ((th Cir. Aug. 25, 1955).   We see cases also about a toy chimpanzee doll “Zippy” (The Rushton Company v. F.W. Woolworth Co, Civil 102-114 (D.C. SDNY October 10, 1955); music textbooks (Curis v. American Book Company, 17 F.R.D. 504 (DC SDNY May 25, 1955); costume jewelry (Trifari Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v. Chanel Co, 109 U.S.P.Q. 48 (DC SDNY, September, 1955), among other cases.  We also see Desney v. Wilder, a famous case related to ideas,  in the Cal. District Court of Appeal, 108 USPQ 17 (July 15, 1955, which reversed the summary judgement of the district court.

We also see an article by Herman Finkelstein asking whether we should change to “a term measured from death…” rather than the curently 28-year term,  presented at the Copyright Symposium, Philadelphia, August 20, 1955, a twelve page mimeographed article.  ‘

Barbara Ringer wrote a bibliography on Design Protection, Washington Copyright Office, June 1, 1955, 70 pages for potential drafting of new legislation  around the protection of designs. And William Strauss published a bibliography on Neighboring Rights, Washington, Copyright Office, October 1955.  It is so much fun to flip through and see what others were writing about in 1955Q   There is also references for foreign publications as well.

Volume 3, Issue 3 – January 1956

This issue continued the same format, with a last minute news item that the Philippines withdrew from the UCC.  The issue begins with Notes from the Copyright Office related to the UCC: France, Mexico, Switzerland, Japan, and India have all ratified or moved to amend their laws related to the UCC.  The note also included meetings related to the Neighboring Rights and the Interim Copyright Committee of Unesco.

Volume 3, Issue 4 – March 1956

Issue 4 continues the same format.  A law review article by Patrick Foley explored “Burlesque of literary property as infringement of copyright,” Notre Dame Lawyer, vol 31, No 1, (December 1955), p. 46-54, responding to the decision Loew’s v. CBS, see 2 Bull. CR. Soc. 1977, item 137 (1955): “the author of this case note finds it increasingly evident that burlesque of serious dramas, novels, etc. has no extraordinary legal armor to defend itself against charges of infringement.  Since “fair use” does not permit burlesque to appropriate substantial parts of a copyrights work, he concludes that the decision may be welcome as a spur to more original and ingenious entertainment.”  This seems like a precursor to fan works, don’t you think?  We are still grappling with where fan works fit within the copyright system!  We also see Melville B. Nimmer publishing “Copyright Publication,” Columbia Law Review, vol 50, no 2 (Febr. 1956), a scholarly discussion of the meaning of “publication.”  Again, we are still grappling with this today.  We also have Leslie Wilson writing on “Microfilm and Copyright,” The Bookseller, no 2610 (December 31, 1955), p. 1968, discussing librarian’s attitude toward microfiliming works where printed copies are not available.Included in this issue are also news briefs: Senate hearings on statute of limitations on copyright litigation.

Volume 3, Issue 5 – May 1956 and Issue 6 – July 1956

Issue 5 and Issue 6 continue the same format.  In issue 6, we see a membership application form,w ith membership dues between $10-25, which includes a subscription to the journal.  You can also get bound copies of the first three volumes!   We find in the bibliography an essay by Harry Ransom on the first copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1956. We see continuing interest in burlesque and the Loew’s v. Columbia Broadcasting System case; renewal and widows; and contribution to composite works.  There is also an index for Volume 3.

—Elizabeth Townsend Gard

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the Copyright Society, 2025