maps and charts are included, with other enumerated subjects of copyright; plans are not mentioned.1 DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. These are capable of two distinct uses: 1, publication in print; 2, public representation or performance. With respect to the right of publication, they are treated as books, and the copyright is governed by the same principles that apply to literary productions. Protection is extended not only to original productions, but also to dramatizations, translations, and adaptations. The right of publicly representing or performing a dramatic or musical composition is treated under the head of playright.2 Musical compositions were not mentioned in the early English statutes; but the word book in those statutes was judicially construed to embrace any piece of music.3 It is now expressly right, one giving a conditional right of property with an unconditional right of action or suit, the other giving an unconditional right of property with a conditional right of action or suit. Either of these states of the law would be strangely inconvenient. "The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 2, says that a book' shall mean and include every map, chart, or plan separately published;' and in the 24th section it proceeds to say that no proprietor of copyright in any 'book,' that is, of a 'map, chart, or plan separately published,' according to the definition given of a book, shall maintain an action or suit in respect of any infringement of such copyright, unless he shall have previously registered such map, chart, or plan' in the way prescribed by the act. No very heavy onus on the proprietorno very difficult step to take before he commences his suit. The words are plain and simple, and there is no reason for saying that the intention of the legislature was different from that which is expressed by the words. The object of the enactment is very clear. Formerly maps had been considered artistic works; now they were to be brought into their proper place 1 U. S. Rev. St. s. 4952. v. Longman, Cowp. 623; declared by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 2, that the word book shall be construed to include every "sheet of music." Musical compositions are included in the subjects of copyright enumerated in the existing American statute, as they were in that of 1831. Not only an original composition, but any substantially new arrangement or adaptation of an old piece of music, is a proper subject of copyright.2 In a recent English case, it was unanimously held by the judges of the Queen's Bench, that an arrangement for the piano of an opera is a work substantially new and distinct from the original; and as such is entitled to protection, provided the arranger had a right so to use the original. So also the arrangement for the piano of quadrilles, Clementi v. Golding, 2 Camp. 25: Storace v. Longman, 2 Camp., note a; Platt v. Button, 19 Ves. 447; White v. Geroch, 2 Barn. & Ald. 298; D'Almaine v. Boosey, 1 Y. & C. Exch. 288; Chappell v. Purday, 4 Id. 485; Chappell v. Purday, 14 Mees. & W. 303; Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 815. See ante, p. 140. 1 U. S. Rev. St. s. 4952. 2 Reed v. Carusi, Tan. Dec. 72. 3 Wood v. Boosey, Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 340, on ap. 3 Id. 223. See also Boosey . Fairlie, 7 Ch. D. 301, 309. In the former case, Kelly, C. B., said: "But what is the pianoforte arrangement? It is an arrangement of the whole of the music of this opera for the pianoforte, a part of which is the ordinary pianoforte accompaniment, the bass and the treble played with both hands, and which is independent of the melody. There may be, as it appears, the line of music for one voice, or two or three voices, as the case may be; and there are separate and distinct lines for the accompaniment for the pianoforte; and, no doubt, here and there throughout this accompaniment, and by going line by line through the score of the original opera, there may be found the same notes; but there are other parts of the accompaniment which are merely the pianoforte accompaniment, the notes forming which are nowhere to be found in the score at all. The accompaniment for the pianoforte is a work of greater or less skill. In some cases, perhaps in many cases -it may be in this for aught I know - the operation of adaptation is little more than mechanical, and what any one acquainted with the science of music, any composer of experience, might have been able to do without difficulty; but it may be, and often is, as in the case of the six operas of Mozart by Mazzinghi, a work - I would hardly use the term of great genius, but a work-of great merit and skill of that eminent poet and pianist, Mazzinghi. If such a work be published as the adaptation to the pianoforte by a composer other than the composer of the original opera, no doubt it is a piracy of the opera, and the composer may maintain an action against the adapter or the publisher of the adaptation; but whenever the copyright in the original opera has expired, if after that, and for the first time, another composer composes another adaptation of that opera to the pianoforte, it is a new substantive work, in respect of which he is just as much entitled to the benefit of the copyright in this country as the original composer of the opera; and if any one had, by an adaptation pirated that arrangement, he would be liable to an action waltzes, &c., selected from an opera, is entitled to protection.1 So copyright has been held to vest in a song consisting of new words and a new accompaniment written to an old air.2 ENGRAVINGS, PRINTS, AND CUTS. Great Britain. The 8 Geo. II. c. 13, provides that "every person who shall invent and design, engrave, etch, or work in mezzotinto or chiaro-oscuro, or from his own works and inventions shall cause to be designed and engraved, etched, or worked in mezzotinto or chiaro-oscuro, any historical or other print or prints, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing and reprinting the same" for fourteen years from first publication. This statute gives copyright only when the subject or design of the engraving is original with the engraver. It does not protect engravings made from paintings, sculpture, and other works of art of which the engraver is not the author. This defect was remedied by the 7 Geo. III. c. 38, which extends protection to "any print taken from any picture, drawing, model, or sculpture, either ancient or modern . . . in like manner as if such print had been graved or drawn from the original design of such graver, etcher, or draftsman." It also enlarged the duration of copyright from fourteen to twenty-eight years. Penalties and forfeitures for piracy are imposed by these acts. An action for damages is given by 17 Geo. III. c. 57. The provisions of the acts above cited were extended to Ireland by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 59; and by the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12, s. 14, they are made to include "prints taken by lithography, or any other mechanical process by which prints or impressions of drawings or designs are capable of being multiplied indefinitely." for that piracy. I consider that an infallible test to show the difference between the one work and the other; between the original opera and the arrangement of it for the pianoforte. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in point of fact for it is rather a matter of fact than any thing else the adaptation to the pianoforte, or the arrange ment for the pianoforte, of an opera already published, is itself a new and separate work, and is not one and the same with the original opera." Law Rep. 3 Q. B. 229. Atwill. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; see also Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Id. 618, where the decision concerning an injunction was suspended on the ground of doubt whether the arrangement was any thing more than a copy of the original. 2 Leader v. Purday, 7 C. B. 4. Engravings, illustrations, &c., published in a book, are treated as part of the book, and are protected by the copyright in the book.1 United States. In this country, engravings and prints. have been protected by statute since 1802. By the existing law, copyright is extended to the inventor, designer, or owner of any engraving, cut, or print.2 No distinction is prescribed between works of this kind and books, except in relation to penalties and forfeitures in cases of piracy. By the act of June 18, 1874, it is provided that the words engraving, cut, and print "shall be applied only to pictorial illustrations, or works connected with the fine arts, and no prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture shall be entered under the copyright law, but may be registered in the Patent Office." 3 In a recent case, playing cards were protected as prints. In another case, a diagram with directions for cutting garments was held to be a book; but the court expressed the opinion that it might be a print or chart within the meaning of the law.5 A mere label is not entitled to protection under the copyright law; nor is the engraved design of a billiard table, having no other value than that of a mere advertisement." 6 PAINTINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS, CHROMOS, SCULPTURE, &c. Great Britain. Before 1862, there was no statutory copyright in paintings, drawings, and photographs; and, though an engraving of a painting was protected by statute, the copyright in the former was not violated by copying from the latter.8 The exclusive right of copying paintings, or any other work of art, was, however, recognized by the common law.9 1 Bogue v. Houlston, 5 De G. & Sm. 267; Bradbury v. Hotten, Law Rep. 8 Exch. 1; Grace v. Newman, Law Rep. 19 Eq. 623. See also Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422; Barfield v. Nicholson, 2 Sim., & St. 1; Cobbett v. Woodward, Law Rep. 14 Eq. 407. 2 U. S. Rev. St. s. 4952. 3 18 U. S. St. at L. 78. See Marsh v. Warren, 9 Chic. Leg. News, 395; s. c. 4 Am. L. T. N. s. 126. The 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, passed in 1862, now gives to the author of every original painting, drawing, or photograph, and his assigns," the sole and exclusive right of copying, engraving, reproducing, and multiplying such painting or drawing, and the design thereof, or such photograph, and the negative thereof, by any means and of any size, for the term of the natural life of such author, and seven years after his death." 1 A photograph of an engraving is an original production within the meaning of this statute.2 The provisions of the International Copyright Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, are extended to paintings, drawings, and photographs, by section 12 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68. The first statute for the protection of sculpture was 38 Geo. III. c. 71, passed in 1798; but this was so ineffective that, in the language of Lord Ellenborough, it "seems to have been framed with a view to defeat its own object."3 It was amended by 54 Geo. III. c. 56, passed in 1814, and was repealed by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 101. The 54 Geo. III. c. 56, secures the "sole right and property" therein to “ every person or persons who shall make or cause to be made any new and original sculpture, or model, or copy, or cast of the human figure or human figures, or of any bust or busts, or of any part or parts of the human figure, clothed in drapery or otherwise, or of any animal or animals, or of any part or parts of any animal combined with the human. figure or otherwise, or of any subject being matter of invention in sculpture, or of any alto or basso-relievo representing any of the matters or things herein before mentioned, or any cast from nature of the human figure, or of any part or parts of the human figure, or of any cast from nature of any animal, or of any part or parts of any animal, or of any such subject containing or representing any of the matters and things hereinbefore mentioned, whether separated or combined." 121, 510; Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 De G. & Sm. 652, on ap. 1 Mac. & G. 25. 715. 1 s. 1. 3 Gahagan v. Cooper, 3 Camp. 111. "These artists," said Lord Ellenborough, "must again apply to Parliament for protection; and they had 2 Graves's Case, Law Rep. 4 Q. B. better not model the new act themselves as they seem to have done the former." |