the plaintiff did not consent to such reproduction.
The only facts that I think necessitate comment are Facts 10 to 14, inclusive.
The issue raised by these facts is whether the plaintiff did sufficient original work to entitle his map to copyright protection.
To be copyrightable a map must be the result of some original uork. Andrews v. Guenther Pub. Co., D.C., 60 F.2d 555, 557; General Drafting Co., Inc. v. Andrews et al., 2 Cir., 37 F.2d 54, 56; 34 Am. Jur. 454-455; 18 C.J.S., Copyright and Literary Property, Sec. 116, p. 233.
The actual original work of surveying, calculating and investigating that was done by the plaintiff in order to make his map was so negligible that it may be discounted entirely.
What the plaintiff did was to study the United States Geological Survey Maps, the Pennsylvania Department of Highways Maps, the maps prepared and owned by the various townships and municipalities, and all other maps which he could find. Primarily, he studied the maps published by governmental authorities. He then prepared, from the information shown on these maps, a large map of Delaware County. From this large map, he next designed and published the small map involved in this case.
To make his map, the plaintiff had to determine only what information he was going to use from other maps, the emphasis to be given to that information and the coloring scheme and symbols he was going to use. When he finished, his map by comparison was a new map that contained some information that was not on any one of his base maps but was collectively on all of these maps.
Is this exercise of judgment and discretion by the plaintiff the type of original work that is intended to be protected by the Copyright Act? I think not.
The location of county lines, township lines and municipal lines is information within the public domain, and is not copyrightable. Christianson v. West Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 202, 203; Sawyer v. Crowell Pub. Co., D.C., 46 F.Supp. 471, 474. Likewise, information in government publications is within the public domain and not subject to copyright. Andrews v. Guenther Pub. Co., supra. Nor can the plaintiff copyright the arbitrary color schemes, sybmols or numbers that he uses on his map. Christianson v. West Pub. Co., D.C., 53 F.Supp. 454, 455.
All that remains is the plaintiff's method of presenting this information. The presentation of ideas in the form of books, movies, music and other similar creative work is protected by the Copyright Act. However, the presentation of information available to everybody, such as is found on maps, is protected only when the publisher of the map in question obtains originally some of that information by the sweat of his own brow. Almost anybody could combine the information from several maps onto one map, but not everybody can go out and get that information originally and then transcribe it into a map.
The plaintiff's reputation as a qualified map maker cannot make copyrightable maps for him. He, or his agents, must first do some original work, get more than an infinitesimal amount of original information. With no reflection whatsoever upon the plaintiff's ability as a map maker or upon other maps published and copyrighted by the plaintiff, it seems to me that the plaintiff's map entitled 'Map of Delaware County, Pa.' is, for lack of original work, not subject to copyright.
Conclusions of Law.
1. this Court has jurisdiction of this case.
2. The plaintiff's map entitled 'map of Delaware County, Pa.' is not subject to copyright for lack of original work.
3. The defendant's map entitled 'Map of Delaware County' does not infringe on any copyright held by the plaintiff.
4. Judgment is hereby entered for the defendant.
5. Each side shall bear its own costs.