| 词条 | Banks v. Manchester |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Banks v. Manchester |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate=November 19 |DecideYear=1888 |FullName=Banks v. Manchester |USVol=128 |USPage=244 |ParallelCitations=9 S. Ct. 36; 32 L. Ed. 425 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=States cannot confer copyrights on public domain case records to citizens or to states themselves. |SCOTUS=1888-1889 |Majority= |JoinMajority= |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence2= |JoinConcurrence2= |Concurrence/Dissent= |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied= }} Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright. In 1882, to facilitate the printing of records of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the state of Ohio passed a resolution to establish a copyright held by the Supreme Court of Ohio's court reporter and advertised the sale of the exclusive publishing rights to a lowest-bidding publishing company for the period of two years. H. W. Derby & Company won the bidding war and assigned all their right and interest in the contract to Banks & Brothers. Banks then contracted the Capital Printing and Publishing Company to print the books. Banks proceeded to print various reports, among which included Bierce et al. v. Bierce et al. and The Scioto Valley Railway Company v. McCoy. Although, for a time, exclusive to Banks's publications, G. L. Manchester published these cases in the American Law Journal, a periodical. Banks sought to stop Manchester from printing the cases. Manchester refused because judges had authored the decisions; therefore, he claimed that Banks did not have a copyright. Banks's position was that the state's copyright, held by the court reporter E. L. De Witt and licensed to them, afforded them the exclusivity. The Court ruled that the State could not hold a copyright and affirmed its decision in Wheaton v. Peters[1] by stating "what a court or a judge thereof cannot confer on a reporter as the basis of a copyright in him, they cannot confer on any other person or on the state."[2] References1. ^{{ussc|name=Wheaton v. Peters|volume=33|page=591|year=1834|reporter=Pet.|reporter-volume=8}}. 2. ^{{ussc|name=Banks v. Manchester|volume=128|page=244|pin=|year=1888}}. External links
| case = Banks v. Manchester, {{ussc|128|244|1888|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/128/244 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/128/244/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep128/usrep128244/usrep128244.pdf{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} 4 : 1888 in United States case law|United States copyright case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。