Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 150
Carol Crosswell Smith, pro se (Elias, Schewel & Schwartz, New York
City, on the brief).
Edward C. Wallace, New York City (Horace S. Manges, Marshall C.
Berger and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, on the brief), for
appellee.
Before MOORE, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
HAYS, Circuit Judge:
The claim for punitive damages was based upon the actions of two of
defendant's employees. Miss Jones, head of defendant's Juvenile Department,
was alleged to have been a party to the infringement, and Mr. Williams, a vicepresident, was alleged to have acted with reckless indifference to plaintiff's
rights in ordering second and third printings of the infringing book after
receiving notice of plaintiff's claim. The district court found that although Mr.
The district court was plainly correct in permitting defendant to treat the
royalties paid to the author of the infringing book as an element of its cost in
computing the profits which plaintiff was entitled to recover. See Sheldon v.
Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 45, 51 (2d Cir. 1939), aff'd, 309 U.S.
390, 60 S.Ct. 261, 84 L.Ed. 459 (1940); Sammons v. Colonial Press, Inc., 126
F.2d 341, 346 (1st Cir. 1942). Of course it is open to plaintiff to bring suit
against the author for such royalties, and we understand that she has done so.
Affirmed.
Notes:
1
The facts are fully set forth in the opinions dealing with the question of
infringement, 360 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1966), affirming 245 F.Supp. 451
(S.D.N.Y.1965), and in the district court's opinion on damages and profits, 273
F.Supp. 870 (S.D. N.Y.1967)