ment to that effect is adduced." It is safer in all cases, for the protection of the employer and for the sake of clear relations with the actual person who does the work, that there should be a definite contract.
When a salaried law reporter had been employed by the State of New York under a law that the copyright of the Reports should vest in the State, Judge Nelson for the Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1852, in Little v. Gould, held as valid an entry by the Secretary of State, "in trust for the State of New York," though no formal assignment had been made.
Implied
ownershipIn the absence of specific contract, or even in some cases of specific contract, many cross-questions may arise which the law does not and cannot determine in advance. In the case of a book "with illustrations by John Leech," where Leech retained the cop5n-ight of the designs, though the publishers owned the wood on which he had drawn them, an English court held to a distinction between the copyright and the right to the material, and directed the publishers to waive their
lesser right and surrender the blocks, in view of the circumstances of the contract.
Protection
outside of
copyrightMost of the cases arising as to ownership are, in fact, issues outside of copyright law, as when in 1883 in Clemens v. Belford, in the U.S. Circuit Court in Illinois, Samuel L. Clemens vainly sought to restrain the use of his pen-name, " Mark Twain," in a collection of his uncopyrighted papers, Judge Blodgett holding that whoever has a right to publish has a right to state authorship, though an author can restrain the publication over his name of things he did not write. The same doctrine was upheld in 1910 in Ellis v. Hurst, where a publisher had printed with the real name of the author some non-copyright books which Edward S. Ellis had put forth under a
