Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1880

Baker v. Selden

101 U.S. 99 | 25 L. Ed. 841 | 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1888

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes the foundational idea/expression distinction: copyright protects an author’s explanation of a useful system, but not the system itself or the functional forms needed to use it.

Background

Charles Selden obtained copyrights in 1859, 1860, and 1861 for books describing what he presented as a simplified system of bookkeeping. The books included an explanatory essay and blank ledger forms made of ruled lines, columns, and headings. Selden’s system was designed to show a day’s, week’s, or month’s transactions on one page or on facing pages.

Baker produced and sold account books that achieved substantially similar bookkeeping results. His forms used a different arrangement of columns and different headings, but Selden’s representative alleged that Baker had appropriated Selden’s system and the forms used to illustrate it. The Circuit Court entered a decree for Selden’s representative. Baker appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether copyright in a book explaining a bookkeeping system gives its author an exclusive right to use the system itself.

Holding

No. Copyright protects Selden’s explanatory book, not the bookkeeping art or system that the book describes.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished the author’s expression from the useful art explained by that expression. A book may be copyrighted whether it describes an old or new system, but its copyright reaches the author’s particular written and illustrative presentation, not the underlying method of bookkeeping.

Granting exclusive control over a useful system through copyright would improperly give the author patent-like protection without the examination required for a patent. If an author seeks an exclusive right in a new art, manufacture, or process, that right must come, if at all, through letters patent rather than through copyright.

The Court treated diagrams, ruled lines, and forms used to explain a useful method as part of the explanatory language of the book. When the method cannot be practiced without using similar lines, columns, or diagrams, those features are necessary incidents of practicing the art and pass to the public for that practical purpose.

This rule does not permit a person to reprint or publish Selden’s book, or a material part of it, as an instructional work. It permits others to practice the system that the book teaches. The difference is between copying the explanation and using the explained art.

Issue #2

Whether Baker infringed Selden’s copyrights by making and selling account books arranged to employ substantially the same bookkeeping system.

Holding

No. Blank account books and the ruled forms needed to practice Selden’s system were not protected as exclusive copyrighted subject matter, and the evidence did not show that Baker copied Selden’s explanatory book.

Reasoning

Baker’s books may have used a substantially similar plan in functional terms, but they employed different column arrangements and headings. The proof showed, at most, that Baker practiced the system Selden had explained; it did not establish that Baker pirated Selden’s literary explanation or presentation.

An account book consisting of blank ruled lines and columns could be treated under the then-existing statute only as a book. But blank forms designed for practical bookkeeping are not protected merely because they appear as illustrations in a copyrighted instructional book.

The close resemblance between Selden’s illustrative forms and the forms used in actual bookkeeping did not alter the governing principle. Unlike ornamental or pictorial designs, whose form is their expressive end, the lines and headings here were functional means of applying a useful art.

Because Selden never obtained a patent for the asserted bookkeeping method, the method and the forms necessarily used to apply it were free for public use. The Court therefore reversed the Circuit Court’s decree and directed dismissal of the complaint.