Must Original Copyright Notice be Printed in Revised Edition? In Lawrence v. Dana, the Circuit Court of the United States held that it is not necessary to print in a revised edition the notice of the original entry of copyright, in addition to the notice of the new entry.1

In my judgment this is not the right interpretation of the law. The decision was rendered under the act of 1831.

right of a second edition cure material deposit a printed copy of such book,' defects in the copyright of the original and 'give information of copyright edition. Copyrights of the editions of being secured,' as if no prior edition of a work other than the original edition the work had ever been published; are granted for additions to, emenda- and the term of the copyright as to tions of, or improvements in the work, the notes or improvements is comand every copyright should bear date puted from the time of recording the of the day when it was secured. title thereof, and not from the time of recording the title of the original work. Copyrights, like letters-patent, afford no protection to what was not in existence at the time when they were granted. Improvements in an invention not made when the original letters-patent were issued are not protected by the letters-patent, nor are the improvements in a book not made or composed when the printed copy of the book was deposited and the title thereof recorded as required in the fourth section of the copyright act. Protection is afforded by virtue of a copyright of a book, if duly granted, to all the matter which the book contained when the printed copy of the same was deposited in the office of the clerk of the district court, as required by the fourth section of the copyright act; but new matter made or composed afterward requires a new copyright, and if none is taken out, the matter becomes public property, just as the original book would have become if a copyright for it had never been secured. Publishers may be in the habit of inserting more than one notice in new editions, but there is no act of Congress prescribing any such condition. Whenever a renewal is obtained under the second section of the copyright act, the requirement is that the title of the work so secured shall be a second time recorded, and that the applicant must comply with all the other regulations in regard to original copyrights; but there is nothing in any act of Congress to show that each successive edition must specify the date of the original copyright, as contended by the respondents. Tendency to mislead the public cannot be

"Authors or proprietors of a book for which a copyright is secured are required by the second section of the act of the 3d of March, 1865, 'within one month of the date of publication' to transmit, free of postage or other expense, a printed copy of the book to the library of Congress at Washington, for the use of said library; and the fourth section provides that, in the construction of that act the word book shall be construed to mean every volume and part of a volume, together with all maps, prints, or other engravings belonging thereto, and shall include a copy of any second or subsequent edition which shall be published with any additions; but the proviso enacts that the author or proprietor shall not be required to deliver to the said library any copy of the second or any subsequent edition of any book, unless the same shall contain additions as aforesaid, nor of any book not the subject of copyright. Prior to the passage of that act, the courts had decided that the information of copyright being secured,' if duly entered in the first volume of a work of several volumes, was sufficient; but all the residue of the provision is merely in affirmance of the true intent and meaning of the copyright act. Dwight v. Appleton, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 195. Subsequent editions without alterations or additions should have the same entry, because they find their only protection in the original copyright; but second or subsequent editions with notes or other improvements are new books within the meaning of the copyright acts, and the authors or proprietors of the same are required to

But the provisions of the existing statute are substantially the same as those of the former one. I shall consider the statute now in force.

Section 4962 of the Revised Statutes enacts that " no person shall maintain an action for the infringement of his copyright unless he shall give notice thereof by inserting in the several copies of every edition published" words showing in what year and by whom the copyright was entered.1 Taken in connection with the entire statute, the object and effect of this provision are reasonably clear. The statute makes no express provision for securing new copyrights for successive editions of a book. If one edition does not differ from another, they are, as far as copyright is concerned, the same work. If any one contains new or revised matter, it is, as far as it differs from another, a new work within the meaning of the law. Copyright is secured in the same manner as in the case of a new work. Hence, there is no necessity for express statutory provision for editions differing from the original. Congress, then, in requiring the notice of entry to appear in each volume of every edition, had in view but one copyright and but one notice of entry; and these were the original ones. The statute had already, in a previous section, prescribed, as conditions of securing copyright, that the title of the book should be recorded before publication, and two copies delivered after publication.2 Nothing would be gained by requiring these things to be done again, when a new edition of the work is published under cover of the original copyright. Hence, their repetition is not required. But the purpose of the copyright notice is to inform the public when and by whom the book was copyrighted; and it is evident that this object is not attained unless this information is given in every copy, not only of the first, but of every edition published. To make this requirement clear, and to prevent the construction that the copyright once secured could not afterward be forfeited by omission to print the copyright

successfully predicated of a copyright in due form of law, where it appears that the party who secured it complied with all the conditions prescribed in the copyright act, which is all that need be remarked in reply to the sug

gestion of the respondents upon that subject." 2 Am. L. T. R. N. s. 418.

1 Section 5 of the act of 1831 was substantially the same. 2 s. 4956.

notice in any subsequent edition, Congress expressly declares that such notice shall appear in every edition. No mention is made of the notice of any new copyright obtained for a subsequent edition; and the statute cannot rightly be construed to the effect that Congress in making the provision under consideration had this notice in view. Such construction defeats the very object of requiring a notice to be given. For the notice of the new entry, while it gives the required information concerning the new copyright, does not show, what the statute expressly declares shall be shown, when and by whom was entered that copyright, which alone protects the greater part of the new edition. Moreover, to prescribe that the notice of entry of the new copyright in any edition shall be printed in that edition would be as unnecessary as it would be to re-enact the other statutory requisites essential to secure copyright in a new edition. Hence, as applied to any other than the original notice of entry, the provision of the statute under consideration is wholly superfluous. Applied to that notice, it is intelligible and useful.

It is conceded that the printing of the original notice, or the absence of it, in any subsequent edition can have no effect on the copyright in the new matter of that edition. Such matter is entirely distinct from the original work, and is protected by a copyright wholly independent of the original copyright. In other words, as has been said, the revised edition, to the extent that it differs from any preceding edition, is a new work within the meaning of the law. It is not less true that the copyright secured for a new edition extends only to what is new in that edition, and does not protect what was before published. The latter is protected by the copyright secured for it, and not by any copyright afterward obtained.

Whether, then, the original work, or any unchanged matter which appeared in it, is entitled to protection, is to be determined solely by the validity of the original copyright, and is in no wise affected by the fact whether another copyright for an improved edition has or has not been obtained. It is conceded that each copy of every edition which is not different from the original must contain the original notice, and that any copies published without such notice become common property.

The principle is the same when the original is reprinted with new matter in a new edition. The new copyright covers the new, but not the old, matter; the new notice of entry applies to what then first appears in print, but not to what was before published. In such case, the original work is reprinted without the notice of entry of that copyright by which alone it is protected. It must therefore become common property, not less than when it appears without the notice of a new entry of copyright.

I have given what in my judgment is the right construction of the statute. But it should be remembered that the contrary doctrine has been expressly affirmed by so learned a jurist as Mr. Justice Clifford.

Books in two or more Volumes. When a book is published in more volumes than one, it is obvious that a copy of each volume must be delivered to the Librarian of Congress. If the several volumes are issued at the same time, there would seem to be no reason why the process of recording the title should be repeated in the case of each volume. But a different rule might be held to apply where the volumes are issued at considerable intervals of time. In a case decided in 1840, it was held that, where the notice of entry had appeared only in the first volume of a work in five volumes, the validity of the copyright in the other four was not thereby defeated. The statute does not expressly prescribe that the copyright notice shall be printed in every volume. But, as the chief object of requiring the notice to be given is to inform and warn the public that the book is protected by a copyright, which cannot be infringed with impunity, it is clear that the intention of Congress may be often defeated, unless the prescribed notice appears in every volume of the work.

Newspapers and Magazines. When the different parts or numbers of any publication can be regarded as independent and distinct productions, a separate copyright must be secured for each one, and all the requirements of the statute must be performed in the case of each one. Thus, each number of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical, is a distinct publication, wholly independent of any other number. Hence, a dis

1 Dwight v. Appleton, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 195.