govern in the case of books. Of course, there must be a compliance with the statutory requisites; and, in the United States, it will be necessary to obtain a separate copyright for each issue of the publication. In the case of a daily newspaper, this will be found inconvenient and perhaps impracticable. In practice, it is not done. But, if it were done in any case, there is no valid reason why the contents of that issue should not be protected. In like manner, copyright may be obtained for any article published in a newspaper, by a compliance in the case of such article with the statutory provisions.

If any uncopyrighted composition be published in an uncopyrighted newspaper or periodical, it becomes common property, and may be republished by any one.1

In England, Special Provision for Magazines and Periodicals. -In England, newspapers are not expressly mentioned in the statute; but there is a provision relating to copyright in magazines, reviews, and other periodicals. Section 18 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, enacts that when the owner of "any encyclopædia, review, magazine, periodical work, or work published in a series of books or parts, or any book whatsoever," shall have employed and paid any persons to write the same, or any part thereof, or any articles therein, on the condition that the copyright shall belong to the owner, "the copyright in every such encyclopædia, review, magazine, periodical work, and work published in a series of books or parts, and in every volume, part, essay, article, and portion so composed and paid for, shall be the property of such proprietor." But the author may publish his production in a separate form, and will be entitled to the copyright therein, provided he has reserved to himself that right, "by any contract, express or implied." In the case of "essays, articles, or portions forming part of and first published in reviews, magazines, or other periodical works

changed. Much that now appears in them has a permanent literary or scientific value, and as such is entitled to protection.

1 This question was raised but not decided in the United States Court in 1839, on an application for an injunction in Miller. McElroy, 1 Am. Law Reg. 198. The injunction was refused,

and the question reserved till the final hearing. No further report of the case appears; but the theory that the publi cation of an uncopyrighted article in an uncopyrighted newspaper or magazine is not an abandonment of the author's exclusive rights therein, is contrary to a fundamental principle of the law of copyright.

of a like nature," it is provided that the exclusive right of publication in a separate form shall, after twenty-eight years, revert to the author, for the remainder of the term of forty-two years; and that the owner shall not, during the twenty-eight years, publish the composition, "separately or singly," without the consent of the author. The purpose and effect of this provision are clearly not to create copyright in the class of works mentioned. To maintain that doctrine is to assert that there was no copyright in cyclopædias, magazines, and other periodicals, prior to the statute of Victoria; whereas, before that statute was passed, copyright in such publications was repeatedly recognized by the courts.1 The comprehensive meaning given to the word book, by both Parliament and the courts, clearly embraces all literary compositions, whether published as books or in cyclopædias, magazines, or other periodicals. The same clause, therefore, which vests copyright in books, vests it also in cyclopædias, magazines, and periodicals. An additional provision for this purpose would be superfluous.

But section 18 has a distinct and useful object. By section 3, copyright is granted only to the author or his assigns. But a cyclopædia or magazine is composed of many articles, which the owner or editor has employed others to write, and of which he is neither the author, nor usually the formal assignee. Moreover, magazine articles are often republished in separate form; and it is important to remove all doubt as to who is the lawful owner of the copyright, and whether the author of the article, or the owner of the magazine in which it has appeared, is entitled to the benefit of republication. These objects are met by section 18. First, it enables any person to acquire, without formal assignment, copyright in a composition which he has employed another to write.2 Second, in the case of an article published in a magazine or like periodical, it defines the respective rights of the author and the publisher. In this case, the right of the latter is often

Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 385; Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 215; Wyatt v. Barnard, 33 Ves. & B. 77; Bell v. Whitehead, 3 Jur. 68; Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51.

2 Brown v. Cooke, 11 Jur. 77; Richardson v. Gilbert, 1 Sim. N. s. 336; Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B. 459.

little more than a license to use the article for a specified purpose.1

Section 19 of the statute provides that the owner of the copyright in any cyclopædia, review, magazine, or periodical shall be entitled to all the benefits of registration, by registering in the manner prescribed the first volume or number of the publication.

Newspapers in England. - The question whether copyright will vest in a newspaper was a direct issue in the recent English case of Cox v. The Land and Water Journal Company, in which it was held that the owner of such a publication has copyright therein, and the articles which it contains, and may maintain an action or suit for piracy, although neither the newspaper nor any of the articles have been registered.2 To the extent that a newspaper, as a whole, or any of its contents, may be the proper subject of copyright, the doctrine of this decision is sound; but, as far as it holds that matter published in a newspaper is protected by copyright when there has been no compliance with the statute, the judgment is supported by no authority, and is contrary to established principles of the law of copyright.3 Vice-Chancellor Malins held that a news

1 Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin, 16 Sim. 190; Mayhew v. Maxwell, 1 Johns. & H. 312; Smith v. Johnson, 4 Giff. 632; Strahan v. Graham, 16 L. T. N. s. 87, on ap. 17 Id. 457.

In Smith v. Johnson, Vice-Chancellor Stuart said: "The proviso in the act of Parliament which prohibits a publication 'separately or singly,' is a proviso intended for the benefit and protection of authors. This court in previous cases has, and I think wisely, construed the language of the act so as to afford that protection which was clearly intended by the legislature, and that protection being intended, it is the duty of this court to give the relief now asked.

"In the case cited before the ViceChancellor of England (the Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin), it was said in argument that the meaning of the proviso taken with the whole clause is not to

vest a copyright in the proprietors or publishers of a periodical work, but simply to give them a license to use the matter for a particular purpose. That view was adopted by the ViceChancellor of England; that was the view subsequently adopted by ViceChancellor Wood [in Mayhew v. Maxwell,] and that is the view which, upon the construction of the language of the act, fortified by those authorities, I feel myself bound to take."

2 Law Rep. 9 Eq. 324.

3 Vice-Chancellor Malins cited Mayhew v. Maxwell, 1 Johns. & H. 312, and Strahan v. Graham, 16 L. T. N. s. 87, on ap. 17 Id. 457, as sustaining the posi tion that a newspaper is protected by copyright, though not registered. These authorities lend no support whatever to this theory. In each case, the issue was whether the owner of a magazine had a right, without the consent of the author, to republish in

paper is not entitled to copyright under section 3 of the statute, which vests copyright in "any book," because a newspaper is not expressly mentioned there, and cannot be brought within the definition of a book given in section 2. He held, however, that a newspaper is within the scope of section 18, though not mentioned there. He admitted that the registration of a book or periodical is essential to copyright, but maintained that section 19, which relates to the registration of magazines, does not apply to newspapers, because they are not specifically designated.

The grounds on which this decision is based are palpably erroneous and inconsistent. To exclude newspapers from the third and nineteenth sections because they are not named there, may be plausible; but, at the same time, to include them under the eighteenth section, when its language is not more favorable to that construction, is, to say the least, inconsistent. With one exception, the classes of publications named in sections 18 and 19 are the same. If newspapers

separate form an article which had been accepted for publication in the magazine. The question was governed by section 18, which, as we have seen, expressly prohibits the owner of a magazine from republishing an article in separate form, without the express consent of the author. In such case, the author sues not for infringement of copyright, in the ordinary meaning of that expression, but for violation of a special contract, -for an unauthorized use of the article, and a use expressly forbidden by the stat

ceedings to restrain an infringement of his copyright, but claims to be entitled under the proviso of the 18th section to a right distinct from copyright, viz., that of preventing during twenty-eight years the separate publication of his article by the proprietor to whom the copyright belongs. He may or may not be disposed at the end of twentyeight years, when his own copyright is to commence, to enter the work at Stationers' Hall. In the mean time he retains the right to protect his future interests by preventing a separate pub. lication without his consent. I am of opinion therefore that this is not a proceeding in respect of any infringement of copyright, and that the provisions of the 24th section do not apply."

In Strahan v. Graham, 16 L. T. N. s. 87, on ap. 17 Id. 457, the decision rests on the same principle. The facts were similar, except that the controversy related to the republication of copies of photographs.

1 The language of section 18 is, " any encyclopædia, review, magazine, periodical work, or work published in a

are included in one, they are included in both; if excluded from one, they cannot be brought within the provisions of the other. There can be no copyright in a newspaper, or any other printed matter, except under the statute; and there can be no copyright under the statute without compliance with its conditions.

The sound construction of the statute under consideration is that a newspaper is clearly within the meaning of a book, as that word is defined in section 2, and as it has been construed by the English courts. There can be no reasonable doubt that it is a "periodical work" within the scope of section 18.1 But it is not less governed by sections 19 and 24, and must therefore be registered.

As the requirements of the statute as to registration of magagines and other periodicals may be complied with by registration of the first number alone, the same rule would doubtless be held to apply to newspapers. This would render the securing of copyright in journals in England extremely convenient and practicable. But in the United States, where there is no special statutory provision in favor of newspapers or other periodicals, copyright for such publications can be secured only by observing the statutory requisites in the case of each issue.

MAPS, CHARTS, AND PLANS.

In England, the copyright in these productions was formerly controlled by the statutes relating to engravings; 2 but it is now governed by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.3 In the American statute,

series of books or parts, or any book whatsoever." Excepting those italicized, the same words are used in section 19.

1 Lord Chelmsford expressed a doubt whether section 18 extends to newspapers. Platt v. Walter, 17 L. T. N. s. 159.

view of the law in Stannard v. Harrison, 24 L. T. N. s. 570, which was decided after the Lords Justices had given their judgment in Stannard v. Lee. In the latter case, Lord Justice James said: "In this case, if the argument of Mr. Cotton were to pre

See 7 Geo. III. c. 38, s. 1; 17 Geo. vail, it would lead at once to one of III. c. 57, s. 1.

8 Stannard v. Lee, Law Rep. 6 Ch. 346; overruling the decision of ViceChancellor Bacon, 23 L. T. N. s. 306, that maps were within the provisions of the statutes relating to engravings. The Vice-Chancellor adhered to his

these two results: either there would be two kinds of maps,-maps published separately and maps forming part of a book, with respect to which there would be two distinct laws of copyright, or else as to all maps there would be two distinct laws of copy