## Facts

- An author created a manuscript, *Gaelic*, compiled from purported spirit communications and reduced to manuscript form between about 1920 and 1930.
- In 1933 the author had approximately 60–70 mimeographed copies made.
- The author’s secretary mailed roughly 18–20 copies to recipients selected by the author, with a transmittal letter.
- Evidence showed copies were also provided to persons outside the author’s close circle, including individuals not personally known to the author who requested copies.
- The author did not place copyright notice on the copies and did not impose express limits on further copying, redistribution, or sale.
- At least one recipient was authorized to make and sell additional copies to others, including friends and strangers, without stated restrictions.
- In 1944 the author assigned his interest in *Gaelic* to the defendant, who asserted exclusive rights to control quotations from the manuscript.
- The plaintiff sought declaratory relief that *Gaelic* (and quotations in a later book based on it) were in the public domain and could be quoted without infringement of any rights claimed by the defendant.
- The district court found the 1933 circulation was a limited publication, not a general publication, and held the manuscript was not in the public domain.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the district court’s finding that the manuscript’s reproduction and circulation amounted only to a limited publication rather than a general publication.
2. Whether the author’s conduct constituted abandonment of common-law literary property rights, placing the manuscript in the public domain and defeating the assignee’s claim of exclusivity.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed.
- The court held the district court’s findings of limited and restricted publication were not justified by the evidence.
- The court concluded the author’s dissemination and authorizations reflected general publication and abandonment of common-law rights.
- The court directed entry of declaratory relief for the plaintiff recognizing the manuscript was in the public domain and could be quoted without infringing rights asserted by the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- A limited publication communicates a work to a definitely selected group for a limited purpose, without rights of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale.
- A general publication occurs when distribution or authorization permits unrestricted diffusion, reproduction, or sale; it terminates common-law copyright and places the work in the public domain.
- Intent to abandon common-law literary property may be inferred from conduct, including distributing copies without restriction and authorizing recipients to reproduce and distribute (or sell) copies without limits or notice of rights.
- An assignee cannot obtain exclusive rights in a work that has already entered the public domain through the author’s prior general publication.

## Conclusion

The court held that the author’s broad, unrestricted circulation of *Gaelic* and permission to copy and distribute it constituted general publication and abandonment of common-law protection, so the manuscript was in the public domain and the assignee could not prevent others from quoting it.


White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1952)