View source for An Interesting Case, Indianapolis Journal (Article, 1883)

<gallery>
File:1883-12-14-indianapolis-journal-oscar-wilde-scotus.jpg
</gallery>

=== Full Text ===
AN INTERESTING CASE

Oscar Wilde a Theme for Discussion Before the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, Dec. 13.--The case of the Burrow-Giles Lithograph Company against Napoleon Sarony, argued in the United States Supreme Court this afternoon, relates to the photograph of Oscar Wilde, the apostle of aesthetic culture, and involves the question whether the copyright acts, in so far as they grant protection to photographs, are constitutional. Counsel for  Sarony argued the latter had "invented" the picture in controversy; that is, "had posed Oscar Wilde before the camera, selected his costume as well as draperies and other accessories, arranged said Oscar Wilde in a graceful position and suggested and evoked a desired pleasing expression." This, counsel maintained, made Sarony the author, or inventor, of the picture.

Counsel for the lithographing company, however, contended that Sarony had not produced or invented Oscar Wilde, but merely arranged him--that is, newly arranged something already extant. If this was invention Sarony had mistaken the remedy. He should have taken out a patent instead of a copyright. To obtain a copyright, the person claiming protection must be the author of the visible article on which the copyright is granted. Sarony was not the creator of Oscar Wilde, and the photograph was not such an original as could be copyrighted. All the photographer did was put Wilde in a particular suit of clothes, have him cross his legs in a peculiar fashion, and put his hand on his hip. That work was not the work of an author, and Sarony was not entitled, counsel maintained, to copyright protection.