Copyright, Its History and Its Law/Chapter 6
VI
Subject-Matter of Copyright: What May Be Copyrighted
Subject-mat-
ter in generalThe subject-matter of copyright should include, in the nature of things, those products of invention, creations of the human brain, which are realized and utilized immaterially through material records, and not, as in the case of patents, materially through the material itself. Copyrightable works, in brief, are those which appeal from the imagination to the imagination, or in which intellectual labor combines immaterial product into new form. What may be copyrighted specifically and. practically depends, under present conditions of law, upon the statutory provisions, national or international, of the several
nations of the world.
Classifica-
tionThe new American code gives the following classification of copyrightable works:
"(Sec. 5.) That the application for registration shall specify to which of the following classes the work in which copyright is claimed belongs:
"(a) Books, including composite and cyclopaedic works, directories, gazetteers, and other compilations;
"(b) Periodicals, including newspapers;
"(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, prepared for oral delivery;
"(d) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
"(e) Musical compositions;
"(f) Maps;
"(g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art; "(h) Reproductions of a work of art;
"(i) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
"(j) Photographs;
"(k) Prints and pictorial illustrations:
"Provided, nevertheless, That the above specifications shall not be held to limit the subject-matter of copyright as defined in section four of this Act, nor shall any error in classification invalidate or impair the copyright protection secured under this Act."
Prints and
labels
excludedPrints or labels "not connected with the fine arts," but "designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture," are subject only to registration in the Patent Office in accordance with the act of June 18, 1874.
All the
writings of
an authorIt is enacted (sec. 4): "That the works for which copyright may be secured under this Act shall include all the writings of an author," thus linking the phraseology of the law with the provision in the Constitution of the United States in which the word "writings" is used, with the effect of construing that word by the classification above cited.
Component
partsIt is also enacted (sec. 3): "That the copyright provided by this Act shall protect all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, and all matter therein in which copyright is already subsisting, but without extending the duration or scope of such copyright. The copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this Act."
Compila-
tions, new
editions,
etc.It is also enacted (sec. 6): "That compilations or abridgments, adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations, translations, or other versions of works in the public domain, or of copyrighted works when produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works, or works republished with new matter, shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this Act; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply an exclusive right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works."
Non-copy-
rightable
worksThe provisions of the law regarding the subjectmatter of copyright are completed by the negative provision:
"(Sec. 7.) That no copyright shall subsist in the original text of any work which is in the public domain, or in any work which was published in this country or any foreign country prior to the going into effect of this Act and has not been already copyrighted in the United States, or in any publication of the United States Government, or any reprint, in whole or in part, thereof: Provided, however. That the publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor."
Government
useIt is not to be inferred from the provision as to Government publications, that the United States has itself a right to use copyright material without consent of the copyright proprietor. The sovereignty of the nation is not to transgress the rights of private property, unless in the necessary exercise of war or police powers, as the sovereign state cannot take land over which it is theoretically sovereign from a private owner except for public purposes and then only by condemnation proceedings at law and with fair remuneration to the proprietor. No right of eminent domain in respect to copyrights is asserted by the United States, and the provision means only that material, otherwise copyrightable, furnished by a public officer or otherwise to the Government, becoming the property of the Government, is put freely at the service of the people.
"Author"
and "writ-
ing" defini-
tionsThe constitutional provision is thus given the broadest interpretation in the act. In the narrow sense the dictionaries define "author" as "one who composes or writes a book" (Webster), and "writing" variously as "a record made by hand," "a production of the pen," "any expression of thought in visible words" (Century); "anything expressed in letters" (Webster, Stormonth, Standard) ; "a written paper," "a legal instrument" (Johnson); "a literary production" (Chambers); "forming by the hand letters or characters on paper or other suitable substance" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) ; "words made legible by any device," "a document, whether manuscript or printed, as opposed to mere spoken words" (Rapalje and Lawrence, Law Diet.); "expression of ideas by visible letters" (Anderson's Diet, of Law). For years Massachusetts voters cast a handwriting ballot, until the courts held that a printed ballot fulfilled the "written ballot" requirement of the Massachusetts constitution. But in the wider sense an author is "a creator, an originator" (Webster, Standard), and a writing is the record or expression of a thought or idea.
Interpreta-
tion by Con-
gress and
courtsCongress, upheld by the courts, had specifically included (law of 1870) under "writings" in the Constitution a "statue," "statuary," "model," without requiring the artist to make a preliminary sketch (if that be specifically a writing) — otherwise, as scupltors are not " inventors " making "discoveries," they could not be protected at all; and in other countries protection has been extended to oral delivery of an address presumably but not necessarily written. It might be claimed, under a restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, that only works specifically relating to "science and useful arts" might be protected, although literature and the fine arts are admittedly especial subjects of copyright. While it is for the judiciary and not for the legislature to construe or interpret the Constitution, the right of Congress to pass laws based upon its understanding of the Constitution, subject to the final decision of the federal courts, has not been challenged. And the code of 1909 by its classification (sec. 5) and its inclusive clause (sec. 4) is most comprehensive in this respect.
Supreme
Court deci-
sionsThe U. S. Supreme Court, in 1884, in the decision of Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. v. Sarony, extending the principles of the copyright act to cover photographs, said through Justice Miller: "By 'writings' is meant the literary productions of those authors, and Congress very properly has declared these to include all forms of writings, printing, engraving, etching, etc., by which the ideas in the mind of the author are given visible expression. The only reason why photographs were not included in the extended list of 1802 is probably that they did not exist, as photography as an art was then unknown." It seems evident that the phrase "visible expression" as used in this decision was intended to give a broad definition and not to narrow the definition by the exclusion, for instance, of "audible expression," as otherwise the performance of a drama or of a musical composition could not be included under copyright protection. This view is confirmed by the later decision of the same court, in 1899, in Holmes v. Hurst: " It is the intellectual productionduction of the author which the copyright protects, and not the particular form which such production ultimately takes; and the word 'book' is not to be understood in its technical sense as a bound volume, but any species of publication which the author selects to embody his literary product."
Originality
and meritThe courts are disposed to extend copyright to any
work involving intellectual labor or brain skill, without emphasizing originality or literary merit. In the important case of Walter v. Lane, in which a verbatim report of Lord Rosebery's speeches was protected, by decision of the House of Lords, in 1900, Lord Chancellor Halsbury said: "Although I think in these compositions (i.e. the work of the stenographer) there is literary merit and intellectual labor, yet the statute seems to me to require neither — nor originality either in thought or language . . . the right in my view is given by the statute to the first producer of a book, whether that book be wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, of literary merit, or of no merit whatever."
"Book"
definitionsThe word "book" covers the great body of copyright property, and has been many times the subject of judicial construction giving the most comprehensive meaning to the term. The English judges early held that protection "could not depend upon the form of the publication"; " that a composition on a single sheet might well be a book within the meaning of the legislature"; and that "any composition, whether large or small, is a book within the meaning of this act." The English law of 1842 afterward specifically construed the word "book" "to mean and include every volume, part or division of a volume, pamphlet, sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, chart or plan, separately published." The law of the United States makes no definition of the term, except by specifically including as books "composite and cyclopaedic works, directories, gazetteers, and other compilations "; but our judges have agreed with the English view, Judge Thompson holding, in 1828, in Clayton v. Stone, that a "book" may be printed "only on one sheet," and that " the literary property intended to be protected by the Act is not to be determined by the size, form or shape . . . but by the subject-matter," and Judge Leavitt, in 1862, in Drury v. Ewing, that a diagram for cutting dresses,
with directions, printed on a single sheet, being " the product of thought and mental toil," was a "book" within the benefit of the law.
Inclusions
adjudicatedIn fact, though all English and American statutes inclusions have been avowedly for "the encouragement of adjudicated learning" and "the progress of science and useful arts," the courts have construed the laws to cover in the widest sense any "useful book." The courts have indeed denied copyright protection only to works having absolutely no literary quality, such as advertisements (unless they contain original literary matter) and advertising cuts, labels, blank books, or blank forms. Even booksellers' and other trade catalogues, having descriptive notes or distinctive arrangement and combination, can be copyrighted. Compilations of existing materials, from common sources, arranged and combined in an original and useful form, receive the same protection as wholly original matter. Drone schedules English or American judicial constructions extending this principle to: (i) general miscellaneous compilations; (2) annotations consisting of common materials; (3) dictionaries; (4) books of chronology; (5) gazetteers; (6) itineraries, road and guide books; (7) directories; (8) maps and charts; (9) calendars; (10) catalogues; (11) mathematical tables; (12) a list of hounds; (13) abstracts of titles to lands; and collections of (14) statistics, (15) statutory forms, (16) recipes, and (17) designs — several of which classes are now specifically included in the new American statute. Later decisions have confirmed several of these categories and have specified also (18) trotting records; (19) racing charts; (20) newspaper reports of public speeches; (21) telegraphic codes; (22) mining reports ; (23) a tradesman's alphabetical list of wares; (24) a list of public documents; (25) mathematical calculations; (26) legal forms; (27) an application form for membership; (28) compilations of railroad time-tables; (29) commercial circulars, protected by a Canadian decision; (30) school registers, and (31) stud book list of horses.
Exclusions
adjudicatedOn the other hand, the courts have declined to include as proper subjects of copyright (a) methods or plans, as for compiling credit-ratings or systems, as in the case of (b) shorthand, (c) trading stamps or coupons as described in a copyrighted advertising pamphlet, or (d) of letter-file indexes; (e) a sleeve pattern chart; (f) the face of a barometer; (g) a railway ticket designed for punching; (h) a day's sporting tips; (i) blank books; or (j) blank forms, as a cricket score-card; and (k) monograms.
Inclusions
definedIn the new Rules and Regulations of the Copyright Office promulgated as approved by the Librarian of Congress in 1910 as Bulletin No. 15, it is said as to books:
"(4, a) Books. — This term includes all printed literary works (except dramatic compositions) whether published in the ordinary shape of a book or pamphlet, or printed as a leaflet, card, or single page. The term 'book' as used in the law includes tabulated forms of information, frequently called charts; tables of figures showing the results of mathematical computations, such as logarithmic tables; interest, cost, and wage tables, etc., single poems, and the words of a song when printed and published without music; librettos; descriptions of moving pictures or spectacles; encyclopaedias; catalogues; directories; gazetteers and similar compilations; circulars or folders containing information in the form of reading matter other than mere lists of articles, names and addresses, and literary contributions to periodicals or newspapers."
Exclusions
definedOn the other hand, definitions are made negatively that:
"(5) The term 'book' can not be applied to —
"Blank books for use in business or in carrying out any system of transacting affairs, such as record books, account books, memorandum books, diaries or journals, bank deposit and check books; forms of contracts or leases which do not contain original copyrightable matter; coupons; forms for use in commercial, legal, or financial transactions, which are wholly or partly blank and whose value lies in their usefulness and not in their merit as literary compositions.
"Directions on scales, or dials, or mathematical or other instruments; puzzles; games; rebuses; labels; wrappers; formulae on boxes, bottles, and other receptacles of articles for sale or meant to accompany such articles.
"Advertisements or catalogues which merely set forth the names, prices, and places where articles are for sale.
"Prefaces or other introductory matter to works not themselves entitled to copyright protection, such as blank books.
"Calendars are not capable of registration as such, but if they contain copyrightable reading matter or pictures they may be registered either as 'books' or as ' prints ' according to the nature of the copyrightable matter." The Rules also make the following negative definitions:
"(12) No copyright exists in toys, games, dolls, advertising novelties, instruments or tools of any kind, glassware, embroideries, garments, laces, woven fabrics, or any similar articles."
The definition of other classes of subject-matter given in the new Rules and Regulations of the Copyright Office, including that of maps, will be found in the chapters on dramatic and musical copyright and on artistic copyright.
Blank books In the case of Everson v. Young, then Librarian of Congress, Judge Cole, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in 1889, refused a mandamus against the copyright officer while admitting that "the librarian had no discretion" on the ground that mandamus "will not be used to order a vain thing to be done" and that a blank book "containing not a single English sentence" is not a subject of copyright.
"The copyright statutes," as is said in Circular Letter no. 32 of the Copyright Office, " in designating the classes of articles which may be registered in this office do not mention blank forms or blank books. The United States courts which have jurisdiction in cases arising under the copyright laws have held that blank forms or blank books or similar articles for use in themselves are not subject to copyright, and hence are not registrable in this office. A bill was introduced in Congress in 1904 proposing to extend the protection of the copyright law to vouchers, certificates, or other business forms, wholly or partly printed. But the measure was not favorably acted upon and did not become law." This exclusion does not refer to such publications as an insurance policy or a legal document, on which blank spaces are to be filled in, which are accepted as proper subject-matter for copyright by the Copyright Office.
Combina-
tions and ar-
rangementsThe copyright under certain categories above scheduled may be in the combination and arrangement only, or it may be also in any original material included with other material. Quantity is not an essential element in copyright so much as "substantial importance." An English court protected a passage of only sixty words.
Advertise-
mentsIn respect to advertisements and advertising matter as such, the new American code is silent, and court decisions, mostly English, have been contradictory. In 1863 Vice-Chancellor Page Wood, in Hotten v. Arthur, " found no difficulty " in deciding that a catalogue of old books was a subject of copyright "notwithstanding that the catalogues were for the purpose of advertising the plaintiffs' stock-in-trade, and were not in themselves offered for sale"; but in 1872 Lord Romilly, in Cobbett v. Woodward, made an absolutely contrary decision, saying: "But at the last, it comes round to this, that there is no copyright in an advertisement. If you copy the advertisement of another, you do him no wrong in doing so, unless you lead the public to believe that you sell the articles of the person whose advertisement you copy." This last decision was definitely overruled and in 1882, in Maple v. Junior Army & Navy Stores, the English Court of Appeal, in protecting an advertising catalogue consisting mostly of engravings of furniture, said through Justice Jessel: "The case which has done all the mischief is Cobbett v. Woodward . . . I think that is not law. I am not aware that the use to which a proprietor puts his book makes any difference in his rights." In 1906, in Davis v. Benjamin, the Chancery Division held a sheet of advertising illustrations with headlines and prices a book. Undistinctive
advertising
not protect-
ableAn advertisement per se of an ordinary character, the courts may decline to protect, either on behalf of the advertiser or of the publisher of the periodical in which it appears; thus possibly ordinary advertisements might be copied by another paper, to give an inflated impression of its advertising patronage unless enjoined for intent to deceive. On the other hand, characteristic advertisements, as those for which department stores pay large sums to advertisement writers, could doubtless be copyrighted to prevent their use by rival firms, though the advertiser would scarcely be interested in preventing the wide diffusion of his advertisement with his name by its gratuitous publication elsewhere. Some street-car advertisements, however, bear copyright notices. Whether the proprietor of a copyrighted periodical could prevent the use of a copyrightable advertisement not protected by specific copyright, in a rival newspaper, would be questionable, though a publisher might be granted an injunction for the combination or arrangement of copyrightable advertisements in his periodical. In 1892, in Lamb v. Evans, Lord Justice Lindley, in the English Court of Appeal, said: " I do not see myself the difficulty in the publisher's having a copyright in a sheet of advertisements. I do see a difficulty in his having a copyright in one advertisement, because, as Mr. Justice Chitty pointed out, that might prevent the advertiser from republishing his advertisements in another paper, which is absurd." An advertisement appearing in several publications, some of them not copyrighted, could only be protected in these latter by specific copyright notice, even though covered in the copyrighted periodicals as a component part. The Copyright Office can make no clear line of demarcation in advance as to advertisements, but it has declined in a recent instance to accept for registry recipes printed on tin and inserted in packages of flour to advertise the flour, which could scarcely be accepted as a "book" or other copyrightable matter.
New editionsNew editions are protected under the American code as new works (sec. 6), to the extent that they include new material; and this is in accord with the whole trend of court decisions. In 1852 Vice-Chancellor Kindersley stated the doctrine that "if a man prints a second edition, not being a mere reprint of the first edition, but containing considerable and material alterations and additions, quoad those, it is a new work." So in 1870, in Black v. Murray & Son, Lockhart's edition of Scott's "Border Minstrelsy" was protected, on Lord President Inglis' decision, to the full extent of the notes: "Questions of great nicety and difficulty may arise as to how far a new edition of a work is a proper subject of copyright at all; but that must always depend upon circumstances. A new edition of a book may be a mere reprint of an old edition, and plainly that would not entitle the author to a new term of copyright running from the date of the new edition. On the other hand, the new edition of a book may be so enlarged and improved as to constitute in reality a new work, and that just as clearly will entitle the author to a copyright running from the date of the new edition." A few colorable alterations or unimportant notes may not justify a new copyright; a Scotch justice, however, contended that Walter Scott's change of a single word in "Glenallan's Earl" authorized a copyright for the new edition, though another law lord differed, and the case was decided on other grounds. It is doubtful indeed whether there can be protection of a single word, a question which arose in the Belgravia case, unless having association in the public mind as a trade-mark. In any event, the copyright on a new edition, whether made by re-writing, extending, condensing, annotating, or otherwise altering, runs independently of the term of the original or any other edition, covers only the new parts, and cannot prevent the issue by others of the original or any other edition on which copyright has expired. This is made entirely clear in the new code (sec. 6).
Copyright
comprehen-
sive"A book must include every part of the book; it must include every print, design, or engraving which forms part of the book, as well as the letter-press therein, which is another part of it," according to the ruling decision of Vice-Chancellor Parker, in 1852, in the English case of Bogue v. Houlston. To the same effect Drone says: "The copyright protects the whole and all the parts and contents of a book: when the book comprises a number of independent compositions, each of the latter is as fully protected as the whole." The copyright under the new law protects (sec. 3) "all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted." The practice of some publishers in copyrighting a magazine and also specific articles or engravings seems, therefore, a work of doubtful expediency. The new law specifically gives to the proprietor of " composite works or periodicals" (sec. 3) "all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted."
Non-copy-
rightable
parts ex-
ceptedOn the other hand, copyright cannot extend to any part of a book not subject in itself to copyright, even under the old law, and the new law (sec. 3) is perfectly plain. The general copyright is not, however, vitiated as to copyrightable portions by its seeming to cover non-copyrightable portions, as was held by Lord Kenyon, in 1801 , in Cary v. Longman. But when copyright is claimed on a work partly composed of uncopyrightable matter the courts may require the claimant, on interrogatories, to designate which parts are and which are not original. " If the parts cannot be separated," says Drone, "it would seem that copyright will not vest in any of it." The new code is to the same effect.
Book
illustrationsThe application of these principles to the protection of a "new edition" which is new only with respect to added illustrations, is very simple. It is only the new illustrations which can be copyrighted, and it is matter for question whether the endeavor to protect an edition of unaltered text by a general copyright notice which really covers only a few added illustrations would not be a false use of the copyright notice. A proper copyright notice on an illustrated book will, however, protect the illustrations against indirect as well as direct reproduction; thus in 1908 in Harper v. Kalem, Judge Lacombe in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York protected certain illustrations in "Ben Hur" against their reproduction in moving pictures.
TranslationIn respect to translations, the new American law is specific, not only in its mention of "translations" (sec. 6), but in giving (sec. I, b) the exclusive right "to translate the copyrighted work into other languages or dialects, or make any other version thereof, if it be a literary work." The early American precedent Wcis the case of "Uncle Tom's cabin," in 1853, in which Mrs. Stowe had copyrighted not only the original work, but a German translation which she had provided; Justice Grier in the U.S. Circuit Court held that she could not recover against one Thomas who was issuing another German translation, since it was not "copies of her book." This case was previous to the statute permitting authors to reserve the right of translation, and the new code as above cited fully protects translations. The author of a copyrighted work thus has the exclusive right to translate his work, or license its translation, into any other language, and under such a license the translator with the consent of the author would have the right to copyright his translation. Where the author employs a translator for hire, the copyright in the translation may be secured by the author of the original work, but under ordinary circumstances the copyright in the translation would be secured by or on behalf of the translator. In case of contest on this point, the issue would be a question of contract, and in the absence of contract or specific assent the courts would doubtless base their decisions on the circumstances of the case so far as they could be held to imply contract. The inclusion of the notice of copyright of the original work on a translation, without specific copyright of the translation itself, would be held, it seems probable, to protect the translation under the author's original copyright; but this would limit the copyright term on the translation to the copyright term of the original work, and for this and other reasons a specific copyright on each translation is desirable, in which case the notice of copyright of the original work need not be given on the translation.
Translator's
rightsIn the case of the translation of a copyright work, the author of the original work has the right to prevent other translations, but the translator has no such right to prevent translation by another translator except as exclusive right to translate is conveyed or implied to him by the author of the original work. A work in the public domain, as a non-copyright work or a work on which copyright has expired, may be translated by any one and the translation copyrighted, but such translator would not have the right to prevent translation by another translator.
In England, while the right of translation may be English
practicereserved under the international copyright act by English notice on the title-page, an English author could practice reserve his right of translation only by providing such translation, but the new code gives the full right.
Translations
in interna-
tional rela-
tiosThe American provisions as to translations apply with especial importance to international relations, "The original text of a book of foreign origin in a language or languages other than English" is copyrightable in America without manufacture here; and such a work, duly copyrighted, can only be translated into English or any other language by authority of the foreign author or his assigns, and such translation in English or any other language can be copyrighted
only when manufactured in this country as provided in the act. If the original text of a foreign work is not duly copyrighted under the American law, then translation is open to any one and copyright can be secured only for the particular translation copyrighted, as
above stated, and this cannot prevent independent translation into the same or any other language. Thus, a German original duly copyrighted may not be translated into English, French, or any other language without authority of the copyright proprietor, nor can an English translation be made, for instance, from a French translation of the copyrighted work; but any number of translations of the copyrighted German work into English or any other language may be separately copyrighted under the American law, subject to the manufacturing clause, if duly authorized by the copyright proprietor, and each translator could only prevent the copying of his particular translation or the translation of his own version into another language.
Foreign
translatorsA translation can be copyrighted by a translator Foreign only in case he is a citizen of a country with which translators the United States has copyright relations or is a residents of this country; thus a Swedish translation by a citizen of Sweden not resident in the United States could not be copyrighted unless the translator had been "employed for hire" by the author or proprietor of the original copyrighted work. If the entire copyright of the original work had been sold by the author to a citizen of Sweden, not a resident in the United States, it would seem to follow that the latter could not copyright a translation though he might retain the right to prevent unauthorized translation under the general copyright which he had purchased. In the case of an authorized independent translation made by a Swedish citizen not resident here, the general notice of copyright of the original work might be utilized to protect the translation, but in such case copies not manufactured in the United States could not be imported into this country; while if such authorized translation bore no copyright notice and were imported into the United States by the author or with his consent, it is probable that this translation, but not the original work or another translation from either, would be freed from copyright protection.
Abridg-
mentsIn respect to abridgments, these are specifically mentioned (sec. 6) as copyrightable works, and by inference from this clause and the provision (sec. i) giving an author the exclusive right to "make any other version," the author or proprietor of a literary work may prevent abridgment of his work. The courts had held to precedents which the best writers, such as Curtis, Drone and Copinger, declare to be contradictory to the true principles of copyright law. In 1740 Lord Hardwicke, deciding against a mere reprint, "colorably shortened only," of Sir Matthew Hale's "Pleas of the Crown," declared that he would not restrain "a real and fair abridgment," and in 1774 Lord Chancellor Apsley, after consultation with Blackstone, held that an abridgment of Hawkesworth's "Voyages," involving understanding and skill, was not plagiarism or a copyright wrong, but "an allowable and meritorious work." In the leading American case of Story's "Commentaries," Story w. Holcombe, in 1847, in the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice McLean, while expressing his own opinion that "an abridgment, if fairly made, contains the
principle of the original work, and this constitutes its value," added, "but a contrary doctrine has long been established in England . . . and in this country the same doctrine has prevailed. I am, therefore, bound by precedent, and I yield to it in this instance, more as a principle of law than a rule of reason or justice." Similarly, in Lawrence v. Dana, in 1869, Judge Clifford, in the U.S. Circuit Court, declared that "an abridgment ought to be regarded as an infringement . . . but the opposite doctrine has been too long established to be considered open to controversy." The language of the new code frees the courts from these precedents and settles the American law.
Compila-
tionsIn respect to compilations, these are protected by specific mention (sec. 6) in the new law, and also by the classification as books (sec. 5, a) of "composite and cyclopaedic works, directories, gazetteers, and other compilations." Compilations can be protected even if consisting solely of non-copyright material, "because of the originality, arrangement, selection, abridgment, or amplification of such simple material," as stated in the Scotch Court of Session, in the case of Lennie v. Pillans in 1843, with which later English and American decisions are in accord.
CollectionsCollections are copyrightable as compilations or otherwise, and where the use of copyrighted poems or other copyright material is permitted, these are protected by general copyright notice on the collection. Permission to use a copyrighted poem, for instance, in a specified collection does not grant a license to use it in other form, though it could be used in a combination of such collections. In 1896, in Gabriel v. McCabe, Judge Grosscup in the U.S. Circuit Court in Illinois held that the licensor could not prevent the use of a song licensed for a particular collection in a combination of this collection in another collection or in an abridged edition of the collection, though an "abridgment" involving a reprint of the song by itself would have been an unfair use of the license.
TitlesAs to titles, which are not mentioned in the new code, both English and American court decisions are broadly and generally, though with some exceptions, to the effect that there is no copyright protection for the title of a book per se, but it may be considered an essential part of the book. Judge Shepley held, in 1872, in his elaborate discussion of the question of titles in Osgood v. Allen as to the periodical Our Young Folks, that "the right secured is the property in the literary composition — the product of the mind and genius of the author — and not in the name or title given to it. The title does not necessarily involve any literary composition; it may not be, and certainly the statute does not require that it should be, the product of the author's mind. . . . It is a mere appendage, which only identifies, and frequently does not in any way describe, the literary composition itself. ... If there were no piracy of the copyrighted book there would be no remedy . . . for the use of a title which could not be copyrighted independently of the book." Judge Lacombe accepted this view in his decision of the "Trilby" case, cited beyond.
Changed
titlesConversely, the publication of a copyrighted work under a changed title, with the original notice of copyright, would probably not invalidate the copyright. though it would make identification more difficult and prevent the copyright certificate being prima facie proof; and change of title is a practice altogether reprehensible. A new copyright of the same book changed only in title, with a new copyright notice of later date, could scarcely be construed as a new edition and in the absence of the original copyright notice the copyright might thus be abandoned or forfeited and the work be dedicated to the public.
General
titlesGeneral titles cannot in any way be protected. The publishers of the "Bibliographie Universelle," in France, the "Post-Office Directory," in England, and of "Irving's Works," in America, were all defeated in attempts to prevent the use of those titles.
Titles as
trade-marksTitles are rather to be considered as trade-marks. which may be registered in the United States under the Trade-Mark acts of 1905-6, and protected by the statutory penalties, or may be protected on general principles of equity. This doctrine was early upheld by the English courts, especially in regard to periodicals, as in the titles of Bell's Life and the London Journal, and again came before the courts in the important case of Weldon v. Dicks, as to the specific title of the novel "Trial and triumph," in which case, in 1878, Vice-Chancellor Malins enjoined quite another book under the same title, though the title was chosen in ignorance of the first book and in entire good faith. So, also, as to the title "Splendid misery," used by Miss Braddon in 1879, Sir James Bacon, in the Chancery suit of Dicks v. Yates, in 1881, was inclined to support the claim of C. H. Hazelwood, who had used the title in 1874, until it was shown that a forgotten novelist named Purr had used it in 1801, so that it had become, in a measure, common property.
In the several American "Chatterbox" cases, "Chatter-
box" casesJudge Wheeler's early decision restraining the use of this "name or word, or any name or word substantially identical therewith," in or upon any juveniles of the general character of the English book of that name, was followed by Judge Shipman, in 1887, in Estes v. Worthington, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, who also held that the word Chatterbox" had laecome "a well-known trade-mark designating a well-known series," published in a distinctive style and enjoined the rival publication, simulating the external style, but of different contents. These decisions previous to 1891, resting on principles of trade-mark and not of copyright, indirectly assured a measure of international copyright.
Other title
decisionsIn 1888 the publishers of Life and of "The good things of Life" obtained an injunction from the N. Y. Supreme Court, in Mitchell & Miller v. White & Allen, to restrain the publication of "The spice of life," as seemingly a continuation or counterpart of the authorized collection of extracts from that periodical. In 1904, in Gannet v. Rupert, Judge Coxe in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, on suit of the publishers of Comfort, restrained the use of the title Home Comfort on a rival periodical "not as a case of unfair competition " but as "founded on a technical common law trade-mark"; and characterized the name as " a badge of origin and genuineness. It is as much a part of the proprietor's property as his counting room or printing press. A rival publisher has no more right to appropriate the name of its owner,"—despite the defence that Comfort is " a standard English word not fanciful or manufactured." This defence had precedent in the doubt expressed by Lord Cairns in 1867 in the Belgravia case, cited beyond, as to copyright protection of a single word, and in the decision of Judge Curtis in Isaacs v. Daly, in the N. Y. Superior Court in 1874, as to the drama "Charity," that "the use of the word 'Charity' as a designation for any work of art or literature cannot ordinarily be monopolized by any one person"; but under trade-mark law a single word associated by registry or in the public mind with a well-known product, may undoubtedly be protected as against misleading use of the word otherwise. The courts will go even farther in preventing the use of a title by another person with intent to deceive or to utilize the reputation of another work or author, as a fraud upon the public, or as unfair competition, without reference specifically to trade-mark principles. Thus Judge Newburger of the N. Y. Supreme Court, in 1910, in Eliot and Collier v. Jones and the Circle Publishing Company, restrained the issue under the title "Dr. Eliot's five-foot shelf" of books by the defendants of a set of books selected by and issued under the authority of President Eliot of Harvard, under arrangement with the co-plaintiff. The English rulings are to the like effect, that while a title has no copyright protection except as part of a book, the use of a title to attract purchasers on the supposition that they are getting another book previously known by that title is a fraud punishable at common law. Further citations of cases on these points are given in the chapter on infringement.
Projected
titlesThere can be no claim to protection for the title of
an unpublished book, as a trade-mark or otherwise, just as there can be no copyright in a projected book. This question was elaborately discussed in the leading English case of Maxwell v. Hogg, in 1867, in relation to the magazine Belgravia, when the rule was laid down that no matter what expenditure had been made or advertising done, a title was not protectable previous to its association with a work actually before the public. Judge Shepley, in 1872, pointed out that "there is no such thing as property in a trademark as an abstract name," for a trade-mark simply shows that certain goods "were manufactured by a certain person," Nor can an abandoned title, in the case of a periodical, be held against a person starting a new periodical of that name, providing it does not purport to be a continuation of the old, according to a French case quoted by English authorities.
Projected
works not
copyrightableThere can be no statutory copyright in a book or other work projected and not yet prepared, despite a general notion that under the old law a projected book could be protected by registering a title and depositing a title-page of an unwritten or unpublished book. There is nothing in copyright law corresponding to the caveat in patent law. This is not in conflict with the protection of an unpublished work at common law or in equity referred to in the new American code (sec. 2) or the provision in the new law (sec. 11) permitting the registration of "a lecture or similar production or a dramatic or musical composition" or a work of art, before publication, with the deposit of a complete copy or identifying print.
Immoral
worksThere can be no copyright in an immoral book, and Lord Eldon, in Sou they v. Sherwood, carried this doctrine so far as to deny the common law right of an author in a non-innocent manuscript, because there could be no right to hold what there was no right to sell. His opinion, resulting in the wide sale of a book which the author desired to suppress, has been severely criticised by later authorities. In the American case of Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co., Judge Morrow, in the U. S. Circuit Court in California, in 1898, held that as a song which the plaintiff sought to protect contained indecent words, it was not entitled to protection under the copyright law. There can be no copyright in blasphemous, seditious, or libelous books; but though this rule was very strictly enforced by English judges a century ago, the later courts hesitate to rule strictly on this point, lest the rule be perverted to sectarianism or despotism. There can be no copyright in books involving fraud, as those which spuriously obtain salable value by being represented to be the work of writers who did not write them, or to contain matter which they do not contain; but this rule does not extend to books under assumed names or innocently pretending to be what they are not, as when Horace Walpole's "Castle of Otranto" was put forward as a translation from the Italian.
PeriodicalsIn addition to the inclusion of " composite works," the new American law specifically covers (sec. 5, b) "periodicals, including newspapers," and by other provisions of the law above cited, this covers "all copyrightable component parts." It is further provided (sec. 3) that "the copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this Act." While the American code does not specifically provide as to the separate rights of authors in articles in periodicals or composite works, which must therefore be a matter of contract, or of practice or precedent implying contract, provision for separate copyright is implied in a clause (sec. 12) requiring the deposit of only one copy instead of two in the case of "a contribution to a periodical, for which contribution special registration is requested" — although the specific article is fully protected, as indicated above, by the general copyright.
Definition of
periodicalsThe new Rules and Regulations of the Copyright Office define periodicals as follows:
"(6) This term includes newspapers, magazines, reviews, and serial publications appearing oftener than once a year; bulletins or proceedings of societies, etc., which appear regularly at intervals of less than a year; and, generally, periodical publications which would be registered as second class matter at the post office."
Periodicals
under manu-
facturing
clausePeriodicals, as well as books, are subject to the manufacturing clause (sec. 15), but affidavit is not required, and the importation of "a foreign newspaper or magazine, although containing matter copyrighted in the United States printed or reprinted by authority of the copyright proprietor," is not prohibited (sec. 31, b), "unless such newspaper or magazine contains also copyright matter printed or reprinted without such authorization" — but these and other conditions are treated in later chapters.
Periodicals
copyright-
able by
numbersThe law provides (sec. 19) in the case of a periodical, that the notice of copyright may be " either upon the title-page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading," "provided that one notice of copyright in each volume or
in each number of a newspaper or periodical published shall suffice." This implies that each issue of a periodical must be separately copyrighted as though a separate work, although the title may be registered as a trade-mark and possibly protected in this way.
A daily newspaper may thus be copyrighted day by day at a cost of $365 per year, so as to protect all its original material of substantial literary value. This was done in fact under the American law previous to 1909, though periodicals were not specifically mentioned; a daily price-list of the New York Cotton Exchange was so entered day by day, but the question of maintaining such a copyright under the old law seems never to have been tested in the courts, and New York dailies copyrighted their Sunday cable letters separately.
In respect to news, there is no provision in the new Newscode. A bill to protect news for twenty-four hours was at one time before Congress, but was never passed. There is, therefore, no copyright protection for news as such, but the general copyright of the newspaper or a special copyright may protect the form of a dispatch, letter, or article containing news. Thus the New York Herald copyrighted without question Dr. Cook's Arctic dispatches, and the question as to the copyright by the New York Times of Commander Peary's dispatches describing his dash for the pole hinged solely on the question of ownership or authority to copyright, as set forth in a later chapter. But any such copyright could not prevent publication by other newspapers of the news that Cook and Peary claimed to have reached the North Pole, at stated dates and under stated circumstances, though their own form of statement of the facts could not lawfully be copied except within "fair use."
In 1892 Justice North in the English Court of Chancery, in Walter v. Steinkopff , said that " although it is sometimes said that there is no copyright in news, there could be copyright in the particular form of language or mode of expression by which information is conveyed." The English courts went further in two actions brought by the Exchange Telegraph Co., 1895-97, ill the first of which Gregory & Co. were restrained from using information furnished to subscribers first as unpublished matter before publication, second after publication because of copyright on the publication, and third as " unfair competition." In 1902, in Nat. Tel. News Co. v. West. Union Tel. Co., the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals protected news on ticker tapes, and in 1910, in Press Assoc, v. Reporting Agency, the English Chancery Division protected election reports on the last-named ground alone. British
periodicalsThe statutes of Great Britain have hitherto provided that a work published in parts or a periodical may be fully protected by copyright entry of the first part; the new code covers newspapers and periodicals generally as collective works. When the London Times' memoir of Beaconsfield was reprinted as a penny pamphlet, the Times brought suit as a matter of common law right, but the judge held that a newspaper was copyrightable under the statute, and therefore that a common law suit could not hold.
Oral worksThe American law now specifically protects oral works by including in the classification (sec. 5, c) "lectures, sermons, addresses, prepared for oral delivery," and by assuring (sec. I, c) exclusive right "to deliver or authorize the delivery of the copyrighted work in public for profit if it be a lecture, sermon, address, or similar production." The phrase "similar production" and the spirit of the statute suggest that, though the manuscript of a book cannot be copyrighted prior to publication, a "reading" from an unpublished book, as a chapter, scene, or poem, might be registered and protected for oral delivery before publication; and the Copyright Office will make such registry on such application. The former law made no specific provision, but the courts seemed disposed to protect a lecturer on the common law ground that the lecture read is not published by reading, and can be controlled as a manuscript. In the application of common law doctrine to extemporaneous or other oral deliveries, the question of implied contract between the speaker and his auditors enters, and the trend of court decisions is that a hearer who has purchased or obtained a ticket, may make notes for his own use but may not publish them for profit. In the leading English case of Abernethy v. Hutchinson, in 1825, Lord Chancellor Eldon protected Dr. Abernethy against the publication of notes of unwritten medical lectures, evidently obtained through a student hearer.
Newspaper
reportsNewspapers have, however, in practice freely republished lectures, and probably even under the present law the courts would permit, unless report was specifically and entirely forbidden by the speaker, a reasonable report but not a verbatim reproduction of the address, as within the bounds of "fair use." The publication of an unauthorized report by one newspaper would not justify another newspaper in copying the report without consent of the copyright proprietor on the ground of publication, for such unauthorized publication cannot deprive the copyright proprietor of his rights. If a speaker delivers an address, extemporaneously or even from written manuscript without registering the address as an unpublished work or taking other precautions, it is probable that the courts would protect his rights at common law; but it would be hazardous not to take advantage of the statute.
Lectures in
EnglandLectures have hitherto been protected in England in case the lecturer gave notice of reservation in writing two days in advance to two justices at the place of reading, but this complicated proviso caused speakers to rely rather on the common law doctrine that oral delivery is not publication. The new British code specifically provides that delivery is not publication, but permits newspaper report unless the speaker prohibits such report by notice posted near the main entrance and except during public worship near the speaker's position; "newspaper summary" within "fair dealing" is expressly permitted.
LettersLetters are not specified either in English or American statutes under copyright law. A private letter has been held an unpublished manuscript, the right Lettersto publish or copyright remaining with the author while living, though the material letter, its paper and ink, has passed to the receiver. Thus in 1741 Pope prevented Curl, an English bookseller, from republishing his letters to Swift, and in 1774, in Thompson v. Stanhope, Lord Chesterfield prevented his son's widow from publishing letters which he had made a gift to her. Letters, however, are copyrightable by themselves or as part of a book; and the writer may protect a letter against unauthorized publication by himself publishing and copyrighting it. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1841, in Folsom v. Marsh, enjoined the republication of letters of Washington, published by authority in Sparks's "Life of Washington," through Justice Story, who said: "The author of any letter or letters, and his representatives, whether they are literary letters or letters of business, possess the sole and exclusive copyright therein; and no person, neither those to whom they are addressed, nor other persons, have any right or authority to publish the same." But as manuscripts posthumously published, the copyright in letters may belong to the receiver or his assigns; and in Macmillan v. Dent, in 1906, the English Court of Appeal held, where the owners of letters of Charles Lamb had sold the copyright to certain publishers, these could not be republished by another who had later bought the material letters even under the authorization of the representative of Lamb's heirs. In Philip v. Pennell, Whistler's executrix was denied an injunction to prevent the use of biographical information obtained from the receivers of letters. But obiter dicta indicated that the courts may grant to the writer's representatives an injunction against publication or misuse. The laws of some countries specifically permit the publication of letters in the interest of justice. Unless the letter is of the nature of privileged correspondence, the courts can probably require the production of a letter in court, and in fact do subpoena telegraph companies to produce the originals or transmittal records of telegrams in court, and thus make them quasi public property. The sale of a manuscript letter cannot authorize a vendee to publish it without consent of the writer, and the receiver of a letter is perhaps bound to keep a letter private or destroy it, if so required by the writer, but this is a right difficult of enforcement if not doubtful in esse. The receiver of a letter has probably a right to destroy it at his will, unless the writer has required its return to him.
The subject-matter of copyright in respect to musical and dramatic compositions and works of art, is treated specifically In later chapters on dramatic and musical copyright and on artistic copyright.
Designs
patentableDesigns for use in manufacture are, in the United Designs States, subjects of patent and not copyright. It is patentable provided by the act of May 9, 1902, that "any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" may be patented, and this classification inferentially excludes such designs from copyright. This generalized description of design patents replaced, at the suggestion of the Commissioner of Patents, the specific descriptions in the design patents act of December 1, 1873, and adopted instead the more comprehensive phraseology of the act of February 4, 1887, for the punishment of infringement of design patents. In like manner the new British code excludes designs registrable under the patents and designs act, 1907, "except designs which, though capable of being so registered, are not used or intended to be used as models or patterns to be multiplied by any industrial process." Foreign
practice"The foreign copyright legislation," as is stated in Copyright Office Bulletin, No. 9 of 1905, "instead of specifically naming the productions which are subject-matter of copyright, generally uses some inclusive expression, such as 'all writings,' 'every kind of literary work,' 'works of literature,' 'literary and scientific works,' 'every production of literature and science,' and even such inclusive terms as 'every work of the intellect.'" Spain adds the inclusive phrase "produced or published by . . . any kind of impression or reproduction known now or subsequently invented." Great Britain, most of her colonies, and some other countries have set forth specific categories. But the new British measure uses the general phrase "every original literary dramatic musical and artistic work" — this replacing the several categories in the several previous laws. In a few countries manuscripts, personal letters and telegraphic messages, mostly in newspaper use, and in Ecuador, titles of periodicals, are specifically scheduled as subjects of copyright.
International
definition The Berlin convention uses the general expression "literary and artistic works," which it defines as including "all productions in the literary, scientific or artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of reproduction," then specifying in detail categories of literary, dramatic, musical and other artistic works, as set forth in the chapter on international conventions and arrangements.