## Facts

- Napoleon Sarony, a New York photographer, created and copyrighted a photograph titled “Oscar Wilde, No. 18.”
- The trial court found the photograph was produced from Sarony’s original mental conception, reflected in his posing of the subject, arrangement of costume and accessories, control of lighting and shade, and elicitation of expression.
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company made and sold lithographic copies of the photograph without Sarony’s authorization.
- The photograph displayed a copyright notice stating “Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony.”
- Sarony sought statutory remedies for unauthorized copying and sales.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may, under U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, treat photographs as “writings” of “authors” eligible for copyright protection.
2. Whether the inscription “Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony” satisfied the statutory requirement that the notice include the word “Copyright,” the date, and the name of the proprietor.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Sarony.
- The Court held Congress may extend copyright to photographs to the extent they are representations of the author’s original intellectual conception.
- The Court held the notice was sufficient; use of the proprietor’s surname with the initial of the given name satisfied the statutory requirement.

## Legal Principles

- “Author” in the Copyright Clause includes an originator or maker of an original intellectual conception.
- “Writings” under the Copyright Clause is construed broadly to include forms of expression by which an author’s ideas are given visible form, not limited to literal handwriting.
- A photograph may qualify as a protected work of authorship when it reflects creative choices such as composition, pose, arrangement, lighting, and expression; a purely mechanical reproduction may require proof of originality to qualify.
- Statutory notice for a copyrighted photograph is adequate if it provides “Copyright,” the date, and the proprietor’s name; the proprietor’s surname plus the initial of the given name is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld copyright protection for photographs that embody original intellectual conception and confirmed that a copyright notice identifying the proprietor by surname and initial satisfies the statutory notice requirement.


Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)