Macmillan Co. v. King

The court analyzed the content of the notes and found that while they were not copies of the book, they had condensed the book in a manner that made it clear that the notes were nothing more than abridged versions of portions of the book. The summary of a chapter might be one paragraph long; within that paragraph it was structured in the same manner as the book. There were quotations from the book, though usually not more than one sentence long. The language used in the notes were similar to the language used in the textbooks. Sometimes there would be words without quotations taken from the textbooks, but this was never more than a few words long.

As District Judge Dodge stated865-66):

The words so quoted are taken direct from the book. Instances of such quotation are frequent throughout the sheets. They are generally short, consisting of one or two words only; the words selected being usually such as would be likely to catch the attention and remain in the memory. Instances of entire sentences quoted are not so common, though there are several of them. The language of the book is sometimes followed, without being distinguished by quotation marks, though not for more than a few words at a time, so far as I have noticed.

...there is frequent quotation of words, and occasional quotation of sentences from the book; the topics treated are topics treated in the book, the attempt is made to reproduce in abridged and paraphrased form (so far as such reproduction is possible within the very narrow limits adopted) the author's treatment of the topics selected, and the author's order and arrangement of topics within the portions of the book dealt with is followed, except for a certain amount of transposition or repetition.

It is true that the whole book has not been thus dealt with; but the copyright protects every substantial component part of the book, as well as the whole. Though the reproduction of the author's ideas and language is incomplete and fragmentary, and frequently presents them in somewhat distorted form, important portions of them are left substantially recognizable.^[1]

This case shows that the analysis of copyright infringement is not a simple procedure based upon direct copying of material; it is also possible through paraphrasing and partial copying to be infringing on a copyright author’s work.

• Primary sources on the case, including judicial opinions