This HTML5 document contains 63 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n4https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/92372/callaghan-v-myers/
n16https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n15https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/128/617/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n8http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep128/usrep128617/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Callaghan_v._Myers
rdf:type
owl:Thing dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:LegalCase dbo:Case
rdfs:label
Callaghan v. Myers
rdfs:comment
Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright. The firm of Eugene B. Myers & Chandler, composed of Myers and Horace P. Chandler, purchased the copyright of the arrangement of a number of Illinois Supreme Court records compiled by Norman L. Freeman. They printed these works, the Illinois Reports volumes 32 through 38, from 1865 to 1867. Myers alone held the copyright to Freeman's arrangements of volumes 39 through 46 and printed those as well.
foaf:name
Callaghan v. Myers
dcterms:subject
dbc:1888_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Fuller_Court
dbo:wikiPageID
56852293
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1018406203
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Copyright dbr:Illinois_Supreme_Court dbr:Copyright_infringement dbc:1888_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Case_law dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Public_domain dbr:L._Ed. dbr:Illinois_Reports dbr:Banks_v._Manchester dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Fuller_Court
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n4: n8:usrep128617.pdf n15:
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q19019970 n16:pDZ8
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:USArticleI dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Primary_sources dbt:SCOTUS-case-stub dbt:USCopyrightActs dbt:Ussc dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:parallelcitations
9
dbp:uspage
617
dbp:usvol
128
dbp:argueyear
1888
dbp:case
Callaghan v. Myers,
dbp:courtlistener
n4:
dbp:decidedate
0001-12-17
dbp:decideyear
1888
dbp:fullname
Callaghan v. Myers
dbp:holding
Arrangements of public domain records can represent copyrightable intellectual effort.
dbp:justia
n15:
dbp:litigants
Callaghan v. Myers
dbp:majority
Blatchford
dbp:loc
n8:usrep128617.pdf
dbo:abstract
Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright. The firm of Eugene B. Myers & Chandler, composed of Myers and Horace P. Chandler, purchased the copyright of the arrangement of a number of Illinois Supreme Court records compiled by Norman L. Freeman. They printed these works, the Illinois Reports volumes 32 through 38, from 1865 to 1867. Myers alone held the copyright to Freeman's arrangements of volumes 39 through 46 and printed those as well. The conflict began when Myers made some changes to the arrangement of volumes 37 and 38 and published them, observing the procedure to procure copyright on these alternative works. The defendants, Callaghan & Company, offered to purchase licenses to publish these new versions of 37 and 38, but would not pay Myers's price. Instead, they made very minor changes to Myers's version, copying essentially verbatim the portions of the book that were actually copyrightable, and published it as their own work. Myers sued them for copyright infringement and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld earlier case law, such as Banks v. Manchester, that said court documents belonged to the public domain. In regards to the case at hand, they ruled that the elements of the books that organized or summarized those judicial works constituted intellectual effort and therefore Myers did hold the copyright because he did follow the copyrighting procedures in all cases except one. The Court found that the copies of Volume 32 required for formally copyrighting the work had arrived late, so that volume was not copyrighted. Nonetheless, the plaintiff, Myers, was entitled to compensation in full for the infringement damages, if he chose to collect them.
dbp:arguedatea
0001-11-08
dbp:arguedateb
9
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Callaghan_v._Myers?oldid=1018406203&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
3026
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Callaghan_v._Myers