When Tangible Meets Intangible: What Stephens v. Cady Teaches Us About Copyrights and Physical Property

In the mid-19th century, intellectual property law in the United States was still finding its footing. The Supreme Court’s decision in Stephens v. Cady (1853) provides a fascinating exploration of the intersection between tangible and intangible property, shedding light on the distinct nature of copyright law. Let’s dive into this case and unpack the valuable lessons it holds.

The Situation: A Copperplate and a Copyright

Imagine this: You’re an artist or a cartographer, and you’ve created a detailed map. Not only do you hold a copyright over this work (an intangible right to control its reproduction), but you also possess a physical copperplate engraved with your map. This plate serves as the tool to print physical copies of your work.

In Stephens v. Cady, the plaintiff, Stephens, found himself in a troubling situation. He owed a debt, and the court ordered his copperplate sold at auction to satisfy that obligation. Enter the defendant, Cady, who purchased the copperplate. Thinking he’d struck gold, Cady began printing and selling copies of the map using the plate.

But here’s the catch: Stephens still held the copyright to the map. He argued that while Cady now owned the physical copperplate, this ownership didn’t extend to the exclusive right to reproduce or sell the map. Stephens filed a lawsuit seeking to stop Cady from printing the map, but his efforts were initially thwarted in both district and circuit courts.

• Does using a patented invention on a foreign ship, temporarily in a U.S. port for commerce, infringe the rights of the U.S. patentee?

This issue arose when the plaintiff, Brown, accused Duchesne of infringing his patent. The alleged infringement? The use of a patented improvement on the gaff (a spar used in sailing) of a French schooner, Alcyon, which had docked in Boston. The improvement had been installed in France, where it was legal.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.

The Legal Question: Does Owning the Plate Equal Owning the Copyright?

The crux of the dispute boiled down to this: Did the sale of the copperplate automatically transfer the copyright? Could the tangible plate and the intangible copyright be considered one and the same? The Supreme Court had to step in to untangle this complex issue.

The Court’s Reasoning: Copyright Is Intangible and Distinct

The Supreme Court made a clear distinction between the physical and the intellectual. Justice Nelson, delivering the Court’s opinion, explained that the copyright—the exclusive right to reproduce and sell copies—was an “incorporeal right,” entirely separate from the physical object (the copperplate) used to exercise that right. As Nelson noted, the copyright was “property in notion” rather than a tangible, physical substance.

The Court drew on British legal precedent, particularly Millar v. Taylor, where Lord Mansfield famously asserted that no transfer of the physical medium (be it paper or plate) equates to a transfer of the copyright without explicit consent from the copyright holder.

In Stephens’ case, the Court highlighted that the copperplate gave Cady the power to print and publish the map, but it did not grant him the right to do so. The latter—the copyright—remained with Stephens, as it had not been formally assigned in the manner prescribed by Congress.

The Outcome: Tangible and Intangible Are Not One

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts, firmly holding that owning the copperplate did not grant ownership of the copyright. To transfer a copyright, the Court emphasized, the proper assignment process outlined in federal law must be followed. In this case, no such assignment had taken place.

The decision reaffirmed the principle that copyrights are distinct from the tangible objects used to create or reproduce the copyrighted work. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with costs awarded to Stephens.

Lessons from Stephens v. Cady

This case serves as a cornerstone in understanding copyright law, even today. It reinforces that:

• Copyright Is an Intangible Right:
  
  Owning the physical medium (like a plate, manuscript, or canvas) doesn’t automatically grant the copyright holder’s exclusive rights.
  
• Proper Assignment Is Key:
  
  Copyrights cannot be transferred through implication or the sale of a physical object; they require a formal, legal assignment process.
  
• Legal Precision Matters:
  
  Whether you’re selling, buying, or licensing intellectual property, ensuring clarity in the rights being transferred is critical to avoid legal disputes.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.