In considering the authority of some of the cases cited below, the judgment in Mott v. Clow[1271] must not be lost sight of. It is probable that some of these cases are not in accordance with it, or with the older cases, such as Clayton v. Stone[1272] and Baker v. Selden[1273] therein expressly approved. Subject to this note of warning, the following may be taken as examples of what have and what have not been accepted as works of art or literature within the scope of the Constitution and the Acts of Congress. Directories[1274] and dictionaries[1275] have both been protected. In the case of the latter, there is copyright in the definitions of the words, however short. A list of the credit ratings of marble, granite, and stone dealers of the United States and Canada was protected in Ladd v. Oxnard.[1276] In Clayton v. Stone,[1277] which has been approved as sound law,[1278] a daily state of the market was refused protection. A racing guide containing a list of race-horses and statistics as to their age and performances was protected in one case,[1279] and in the other case a list of trotting horses and their paces.[1280] In Brightley v. Littleton[1281] a blank form of application for liquor licence was held to be copyright. In Carlisle v. Colusa County[1282] copyright was denied to a blank form of property statement for assessment purposes.[240]

This latter decision appears, however, to have been partly on the ground that as the assessors were obliged to issue a form, it would embarrass their duties if forms drawn up by private persons were entitled to copyright.

A circular in pamphlet form used as an advertisement, and explaining a certain method of distribution of coupons to cash purchasers from certain merchants named in the pamphlet, has been held to be the subject of copyright.[1283] The circuit judge, however, in his judgment, says: "It requires some stretch of imagination to say that this pamphlet comes within the purpose of Congress, the encouragement of learning, and the increase of useful knowledge, but the official charged with the duty has granted a copyright to this pamphlet, and his decision is accepted."[1284]

Dramatic works[1285] have been protected, although not of a very high literary standard. In Henderson v. Tompkins[1286] protection was given to a topical song which was designed merely to amuse. It was sufficient if it accomplished that purpose.

Law Reports are protected so far as they consist of original intellectual matter;[1287] the protection may thus extend to the title-page, table of cases, the head notes, the statements of facts, the argument of counsel, the index, the order and arrangement of cases, the numbering and pagination of the volumes, the table of cases cited in the opinions, the subdivision of the index into condensed titles, and the cross references.[1288] The original work of the reporter is alone protected.[1289] In the opinion of the Court there is no copyright;[1290] these constitute part of the law of the land open to all to make use of as they please, and neither the state, the judge, nor the reporter can acquire or confer any conclusive [241] privilege of copying them. The same rule applies to the head notes in those states where they are prepared by the judge.[1291] On the same grounds of public policy no one can have copyright in the statutes;[1292] the legislature of the state cannot confer it on any one.[1293] There may be copyright in the head notes and arrangement of a digest of the statutes.[1294]

The contents of a book do not require to be entirely new; if partially old there will be copyright quoad the new material or new arrangement.[1295] Thus there is copyright in notes and additions to an old work,[1296] in a new arithmetic combining old material in new form,[1297] in translations,[1298] in the adaptation of an old drama introducing a new title, new dialogue, minor characters, scenery, and dramatic situations with the orchestration and orchestra part songs and music,[1299] and in the dramatization of a novel.[1300]

In one case it was held that the adaptation of a musical piece from the notation suitable to one instrument to that suitable to another was not a sufficiently intellectual process to entitle the adapter to copyright in his adaptations.[1301] It was said that "a mere mechanic could make the adaptation and accompaniment." Since then, however, it has been held that a musical arrangement is the subject of copyright. In Thomas v. Lennox[1302] an orchestral accompaniment for a non-copyright oratorio by Gounod was held to be the subject of copyright. In Carte v. Evans[1303] an arrangement for the pianoforte of the orchestral score of an opera was held to be copyright.[242]

Copyright in new editions runs quoad the new material from the date of the new edition.[1304] The additions or corrections must be of substantial value. A work which is publici juris cannot be reclaimed by colourable and immaterial alterations or additions.[1305]

A book need not be a book in the ordinary sense of the word; the word in the Act is not to be construed by reference to lexicographers: "the literary property to be protected by the Act is not to be determined by the size, form, or shape in which it makes its appearance, but by the subject-matter."[1306] A single sheet containing literary matter will be protected as a book.[1307] No doubt, however, the subject to be protected must be ejusdem generis as a book or leaflet. The subject-matter must convey, and the form must be suitably adapted for conveying, information to the reader. The copyright law embraces those things that are printed and published for information and not for use in themselves. Thus what is really a mechanical instrument, and if original entitled to protection under the patent law, will not be protected by the copyright law. In Amberg File v. Shea[1308] protection was claimed in a letter file. It was said that the spaces between the index letters were adjusted to the average requirements of the correspondent. These average requirements were ascertained by exhaustive research in different directories. Copyright was refused. In Baker v. Selden[1309] blank account books of an original type or pattern were refused protection. The judge in that case drew the distinction between what was a proper subject of the patent laws and what was a proper subject of copyright law—"The object of the one is explanation, the object of the other is use."[1310] In Drury v. Ewing[1311] a "ladies' chart for cutting dresses and basques for ladies, and coats, jackets, &c., for boys" was protected. It is almost certain, however, that this decision would not now be accepted as sound. Mere labels will not [243] be protected as copyright works.[1312] They may be protected by registration in the Patent Office.[1313]

Copyright may be obtained for works of the imagination, or for a mere collection and arrangement of material open to all mankind.[1314] What is meant by originality as a requisite of copyright is that what is claimed as the subject of copyright, whether it be the composition or arrangement of matter, must not have been taken from some literary or artistic work already in existence. It need not be the first of its kind; the same thing may have been done before so as to produce identically the same result.[1315] If the second author, artist, or composer goes about his work independently, searching out his material from the original sources, he is equally entitled to copyright with the first. Herein copyright law differs from the law of patents; in the former there may be two concurrent copyrights in what is identically the same creation, in the latter there can only be one patent, the first inventor being entitled.

Letters may be the subject of copyright, whether of a business or private nature, and although never intended by the writer to be published as literary productions. In Folsom v. Marsh[1316] the letters of George Washington were the subject of controversy. Story, J., in giving judgment, laid down the law as to the property in letters at some length:

"There is no small confusion in the books with reference to the question of copyright in letters. Some of the dicta seem to suppose that no copyright can exist except in letters which are professedly literary, while others again recognise a much more enlarged and liberal doctrine upon the whole subject. In the first place I hold that the author of any letter or letters (and his representatives), whether they are literary compositions or familiar letters or letters of business, possess the sole and exclusive copyright therein; and that no persons, neither those to whom they are addressed nor other persons, have any right or authority to publish the same upon their own account or for their own benefit. But consistently with this right the persons to whom they are addressed may have, [244] nay, must by implication possess the right to publish any letter or letters addressed to them upon such occasions as require or justify the publication or public use of them, but this right is strictly limited to such occasions. Thus a person may justifiably use and publish in a suit at law or in equity such letter or letters as are necessary and proper to establish his right to maintain the suit or defend the same. So if he be aspersed or misrepresented by the writer or accused of improper conduct in a public manner, he may publish such parts of such letter or letters, but no more, as may be necessary to vindicate his character and his reputation, or free him from unjust obloquy and reproach. If he attempt to publish such letter or letters on other occasions not justifiable, a Court of Equity will prevent the publication by an injunction as a breach of private confidence or contract or of the rights of the author, and a fortiori if he attempt to publish them for profit, for then it is not a mere breach of confidence or contract, but it is a violation of the exclusive copyright of the writer. In short, the person to whom letters are addressed has but a limited right or special property (if I may so call it) in such letters as a trustee, or bailee for particular purposes, either of information or of protection or of support of his own rights and character. The general property and the general rights incident to property belong to the writer, whether the letters are literary compositions or familiar letters or details of facts or letters of business. The general property in the manuscript remains in the writer and his representatives as well as the general copyright. A fortiori third persons standing in no privity with either party are not entitled to publish them to subserve their own private purposes of interest or curiosity or passion."

It is not quite accurate to say that the receiver of a letter is merely a trustee or bailee for particular purposes. Clearly the receiver of a letter is entitled to destroy it unless there is any express or implied stipulation to the contrary, and probably he can prevent the sender from publishing it by refusing to produce it if it is in his possession.

As a rule there can be no copyright in a title.[1317] The deposit of the title-page with the Librarian of Congress does not give the author any exclusive right to the use of that title.[1318] A title can only be protected as a trade mark in connection with a particular literary or artistic production which has become known to the public. The public must be shown to be [245] deceived or to be in danger of being deceived.[1319] A title may be protected by registration as a trade mark.[1320]

Photographs were first protected by the Statute of March 3, 1865; before then protection was refused to them under the head of prints, cuts, or engravings.[1321] It seems to have been doubted at one time whether the protection of photographs was not ultra vires of the powers conferred by the Constitution. There is certainly an apparent difficulty in bringing a photograph within the expression "writings" used in the Constitution; but this word has received an extremely wide and liberal construction, and has been held to be capable of including any literary or artistic production of the intellect. Photographs have been now frequently protected, but it is not every photograph that will be protected, there must be some evidence that the photographer has exercised an intellectual choice of subject-matter, expression, arrangement, light, or other circumstances or conditions which go to the production of an artistic photograph.[1322] It will be a question of fact for the Court or jury whether the photograph is a mere manual reproduction of subject-matter or an original work of art.[1323] In a portrait there may be copyright in so far as the photographer has relied on his own judgment for the choice of light, background, pose, or attitude.[1324] In one case the photograph of a yacht under sail was protected. It required the photographer to select and utilise the best effects of light, cloud, water, and general surroundings, and combine them under favourable conditions for depicting vividly and accurately the view of a yacht under sail.[1325]

A slight colourable alteration in a non-copyright photograph will not entitle it to copyright.[1326]

Engravings, cuts, and prints will be protected,[1327] but there [246] must be at least some merit in them as artistic or instructive productions. Thus the prints of common articles of household use in a tradesmen's catalogue,[1328] drawings of billiard tables in a similar catalogue,[1329] a card of specimen colours and tints of zinc paints,[1330] and a poster with coloured drawings of a circus performance[1331] have all been refused protection. If there is real artistic merit in a drawing it will not be disentitled to protection merely on the ground that it has been used as an advertisement.[1332]

It has been held that playing cards printed in colours are entitled to protection as "prints."[1333]

The Act of June 18, 1874, enacts that the protection of the Copyright Acts conferred on "engravings," "cuts," and "prints" shall not extend to prints or labels designed to be used for any articles of manufacture. This Act cannot be evaded by attempting to copyright the picture or drawing from which the label is designed. In Schumacher v. Wogram[1334] the Court refused protection under the Copyright Acts to a picture representing a young woman holding a bouquet of flowers intended to be reproduced on labels for cigar boxes. The reason for refusing protection of the copyright law to such productions is that their only real value is as a trade mark connected with a particular article of manufacture.[1335] They are not designed in themselves to instruct or amuse. As trade marks they will be protected if registered in the Patent Office. The fact that a picture could be readily lithographed and used as a label does not deprive it of copyright;[1336] it must in order to lose its copyright have been made with the intention of being used as a label. If the painting itself were to be considered a label because copies might be so used, no masterpiece would be entitled to copyright. A painting, [247] engraving, or print in order to be protected must be a pictorial representation of something and not merely a design.[1337]

Section II.—Nationality of the Author.

Unfortunately the Acts of Congress are not clear as to how far the works of foreign authors, or the works of non-residents in the United States are protected.

Until 1891 the works of foreign authors not resident in the United States were denied protection. Sec. 4971 of the Revised Statutes ran as follows:

"Sec. 4971. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the printing, publishing, importation, or sale of any book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, print, cut, engraving, or photograph, written, composed, or made by any person not a citizen of the United States nor resident therein."[1338]

By the Act of 1891, the benefits of copyright are extended to the citizens of foreign countries which are proclaimed by the President as conferring reciprocal rights on American citizens. Sec. 4971 of the Revised Statutes is repealed. The Act of March 3, 1891, section 13, enacts—

"That this Act shall only apply to a citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation when such foreign state or nation permits to citizens of the United States of America the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as its own citizens, or when such foreign state or nation is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright by the terms of which agreement the United States of America may at its pleasure become a party to such agreement. The existence of either of the conditions aforesaid shall be determined by the President of the United States by proclamation made from time to time as the purposes of this Act may require."

The Act of March 3, 1891, section 5, amending the Revised Statutes, sec. 4959, enacts that—

"... the alterations, revisions, and additions made to books by foreign authors heretofore published, of which new editions shall appear subsequently to the taking effect of this Act, shall be held and deemed capable of being copyrighted as above provided for in this Act, unless they form a part of the series in course of publication at the time this Act shall take effect." (July 1, 1891.)

[248]

On these sections two questions seem to be left open:

1. It may be that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act if either the author or his assignee before publication were a citizen of the United States, or a subject or citizen of a proclaimed country. Section 1 amending the Revised Statutes, sec. 4952, gives the sole liberty to "the author, inventor, designer, or proprietor, and to the executors, administrators, or assigns of any such person." Section 13 "applies the Act" to citizens or subjects of certain foreign states or nations. Under the Revised Statutes, section 4971, before 1891 it was the nationality of the author alone that was considered, and it would have been no answer to have said that the assignee before publication was an American citizen or resident in the United States. Perhaps in 1891 the benefit was designedly extended to assignees before publication, who complied with the conditions and who had taken assignments from foreign authors who did not. On the whole, however, I am inclined to the opinion that it will not do merely to allege that the assignee of the uncopyrighted and unpublished work is a citizen of the United States or a subject or citizen of one of the proclaimed countries. It must, I think, be alleged that the author, inventor, designer, or proprietor ab initio has complied with the conditions as to nationality. By proprietor ab initio (and probably this is the true meaning of "proprietor" in section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1891[1339]), I mean one who compiles a work by his servants or agents, for instance, a body corporate, which cannot be said to be an "author, inventor, or designer," and yet is entitled to the whole property in the work of its servants as it grows up from day to day. I have not con [249]sidered the assignee after publication. I think it must be abundantly clear that his nationality cannot be taken as the test, since if he took his assignment from a foreign author who did not comply with the conditions of nationality when the work was published, the work at the time of assignment would have become publici juris. If he took his assignment from one who complied with the conditions of nationality and copyrighted the work, the fact of his being an alien would not prevent him acquiring the copyright already secured.

2. Before 1891 residence in the United States, which was interpreted to mean permanent residence and not merely for the purposes of publication,[1340] was sufficient to entitle an author to the privileges of the Copyright Acts. The provision now, under the Act of March 3, 1891, is that the Act shall only apply to a citizen of a foreign country which has been proclaimed. Reading the Act strictly a foreign resident in the United States but not a citizen thereof is excluded from protection which he formerly had, unless he is a citizen or subject of a proclaimed country. No doubt this was not intended to be the result of the Act of 1891, but the words are plain and unambiguous, and there seems no reason why they should not have effect according to their plain meaning. A fortiori a foreigner resident in, but not a subject of, one of the proclaimed countries would not be entitled to copyright.

The following States have been proclaimed as fulfilling one or other of the required conditions, and their citizens are therefore entitled to acquire copyright in the United States in the same way as an American citizen:

[250]

Section III.—Necessary Formalities.

No person is entitled to copyright unless he—[1341]

I. In the case of a book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, photograph, or chromo—

II. In the case of a painting, drawing, statue, statuary, or a model or design for a work of the fine arts—[1342]

The proprietor of every copyright book or other article must deliver (or mail within the United States) to the Librarian of Congress a copy of every subsequent edition wherein any substantial changes shall be made.[1343] Each volume of a book in two or more volumes, when such volumes are published separately, and the first one has not been issued before July 1, 1891, and each number of a periodical is to be considered an independent publication.[1344] The requirements of the statute as to delivery of title and copies, and printing of notice must therefore be complied with in the case of each volume of a book or number of a periodical.[251]

Conditions Precedent.—The deposit of title and delivery of copies as prescribed by the statutes are conditions precedent to copyright and not merely declaratory.[1345] There is no common law right after publication, and therefore if a work is published without the proper formalities having been observed it becomes publici juris, and any one may make what use of it he pleases.[1346] Ignorance of the law is no excuse even although a new Act has just been passed altering the time within which copies must be delivered.[1347] In an action for infringement the declaration must set out in detail a compliance with the law as to formalities,[1348] and the burden of proof thereof is on the complainant.[1349] He must prove the deposit of title, delivery of copies, notice of copyright, and the date of publication. The latter is essential, as on it depends the validity of the entry.[1350]

Delivery of the Title.—The copy of the title to be delivered must be "printed," i. e. the characters used must be those ordinarily used in printing, but they may be made by hand with a pen.[1351] The work must be published within a reasonable time after the deposit of the title-page, otherwise the formalities will not have been complied with.[1352] Two months' delay in mailing to the Librarian of Congress copies of a photograph after the filing of its title is not unreasonable.[1353]

It will not do to publish a book under a substantially different title from that deposited. Immaterial variations in the title, or sub-title, or complete alteration of a description [252] on the title-page will not make the deposit void. In Donnelley v. Ivers[1354] the title deposited was "Over One Thousand Recipes. The Lake Side Cook Book: A Complete Manual of Practical, Economical, Palatable, and Healthful Cookery. Chicago: Donnelley, Lloyd & Company, 1878." The title on the book as published was "The Lake Side Cook Book, No. 1. A Complete Manual of Practical, Economical, Palatable, and Healthful Cookery. By N. A. D." It was held that the requirement as to the deposit of title having been "substantially, in good faith complied with," the objection was not tenable. What is required is, that the deposited title be sufficient to identify the book with substantial certainty. In Carte v. Evans,[1355] the title filed was "Pianoforte Arrangement of the Comic Opera, The Mikado, or the Town of Titipu, by W. S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan. By George L. Tracey." The book as published bore the title "Vocal Score of the Mikado, or The Town of Titipu. Arrangement for Pianoforte by George Lowell Tracey (of Boston, U. S. A.) of the above-named opera by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan." This was held a sufficient deposit to protect the pianoforte accompaniment. In Black v. Allen[1356] the title deposited was "An Outline of the Political and Economic History of the United States, with Maps and Charts: I. History and Constitution by Alexander Johnson, M. A.; II. Population and Industry by Francis A. Walker, LL. D." The title of the book as deposited was "United States: Part III. Political Geography and Statistics, copyright, 1888, by Francis A. Walker." In the absence of evidence that the defendant was deceived or misled by the change of the title the Court held that it was valid. In Daly v. Brady[1357] the title of a drama deposited was "Under the Gaslight: A Drama of Life and Love in these Times." The actual title as published was "Under the Gaslight: A Romantic Panorama of the Streets and Homes of New York." The Court held that the change of title might deceive the public, and therefore the deposit of title was bad; but this decision was reversed in Daly v. Webster;[1358] the variance was in the description.[253] "The title required may include a sub-title, but it does not include a description of the book upon the title-page."

An author may wish to change his title entirely after he has deposited the title-page. He may do this before the deposit of copies by depositing a fresh title-page; but it is questionable whether the duration of his copyright will run from the first deposit of title or from the deposit of the altered title.[1359]

Delivery of Description.—Probably a short description is all that is required. If the title is in itself descriptive, probably that will be sufficient. The photograph of a painting, or other work of art which is required to be delivered, does not take the place of a description.[1360]

Delivery of Copies.—Under the Revised Statutes before 1891 the printed copies had to be delivered "within ten days from the publication thereof." This was sufficiently complied with by the delivery of two copies on the day before publication.[1361] The Act of 1891 now requires that the two printed copies shall be delivered "not later than the day of publication."

The copies deposited with the Librarian of Congress do not require to bear the statutory notice as to copyright.[1362]

The memorandum given by the librarian is sufficient primâ facie evidence of the fact and date of deposit.[1363] The librarian's date stamp on the book is not conclusive, and may be rebutted by other evidence of the actual date of deposit.[1364] If the copyright matter is ordinarily bound up with other matter, the Librarian of Congress cannot insist on the delivery of the bound volume complete. It is a sufficient delivery to take the volume to pieces and deliver the loose sheets on which the copyright matter is printed.[1365] Before 1891 the two copies [254] deposited had to be of the "best edition," but this appears to be no longer necessary.

Printing in the United States.—In the case of

the two copies required to be delivered must be printed from type set within the limits of the United States or from plates made therefrom, or from negatives or drawings on stone made within the limits of the United States, or from transfers made therefrom.[1366]

This requirement was introduced in 1891, when the privileges of copyright were extended to subjects and citizens of foreign countries. Formerly there was no obligation to print within the United States.

It has been held that a volume of music is not a "book" within the meaning of the provision in the statute enacting that the two copies delivered shall be printed in the United States.[1367] It would seem to follow that the necessity of printing in the United States does not extend either to maps or charts, or even to dramatic compositions in book form. These are all dealt with specifically in the Act, and therefore, on the authority of Littleton v. Oliver,[1368] do not come within the generic term "books."

Retrospective Provision.—By an Act of March 3, 1893, it is enacted—

"That any author, inventor, designer, or proprietor of any book or other article entitled to copyright, who has heretofore failed to deliver in the office of the Librarian of Congress two complete copies of such book, or description or photograph of such article within the time limited by title sixty, chapter three of the Revised Statutes relating to copyrights and the Acts in amendment thereof, and has complied with all other provisions thereof, who has before the 1st day of March 1893 delivered at the office of Librarian of Congress or deposited in the mail addressed to the Librarian of Congress two complete printed copies of such book, or [255] description or photograph of such article, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of such title sixty, chapter three of the Revised Statutes and the Acts in amendment thereof."

Notice of Copyright.—No person can maintain an action for infringement of his copyright unless each published copy of his work bears one or other of the following notices:[1369]

"Entered according to Act of Congress in the year ——, by A. B., in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.

Or:

"Copyright, 18—, by A. B."

Books must bear the notice:

"On the title-page or page immediately following."[1370]

Designs for moulded decorative articles, tiles, plaques, or articles of pottery:

"Upon the back or bottom of such articles or on such other place upon them as it has heretofore been usual ... for the placing of manufacturers, merchants, and trade marks thereon."[1371]

Other works, including musical compositions, photographs, pictures, engravings:

"Upon some visible portion thereof, or of the substance upon which the same shall be mounted."[1372]

The statutory requirements as to notice must be strictly complied with, and a departure from the exact words of one or other of the alternative forms may be fatal to the right of action. When the only notice on a book was "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, by H. A. Jackson," it was held an insufficient notice as complying with neither of the two alternative forms.[1373]