[165] J. University Copyright. In England, by special statute enacted in consequence of the decision that the effect of the statute of Anne was to destroy perpetual common-law copyright in published books,87 the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the four universities of Scotland, each college and house of learning at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Trinity College, Dublin, and the colleges of Eton, Westminster, and Winchester, were given the exclusive right of printing all such books as had been or should be bequeathed or given to them, or in trust for them, by the authors thereof, or by their representatives. This right was perpetual unless it was given or bequeathed for a limited period.88 Such exclusive right was given on

90

95

97

86. Treasury Minute, June 28, 1912 (reprinted Copinger Copyright [5th ed] p 750).

87. See supra § 41.

88. Copyright Act, 1775 (15 Geo. III c 53) (extended to Trinity College, Dublin, by St. 41 Geo. III c 107 § 3); Donaldson v. Beckett, 2 Bro. P. C. 128, 1 Reprint 837.

89. See supra note 88.
90. St. 5 & 6 Vict. c 45 § 27.
91.

Papers laid before parliament by, note 84). command, for example, treaties, diplomatic correspondence, reports from consuls and secretaries of legation, reports of inquiries into explosions or accidents, and other special reports made to government departments. (4) Acts of parliament. (5) Official books, for example, King's Regulations for the Army and Navy. (6) Literary or quasi literary works, for example, the Reports of the "Challenger Expedition," the Rolls Publications, the State Trials, and "Board of Trade Journal." (7) Charts and ordinance maps. The first five of the above classes of publications were declared subject to republication by any person free from all restrictions. In the last two classes, the exclusive right of publication was retained by the government. See Treasury Minute, Aug. 31, 1887 (reprinted MacGillivray Copyright p 377); MacGillivray Copyright p 60; Copinger Copyright (5th ed) p 750; 3 Encyclopædia L. Eng. 623; 8 Halsbury L. Eng. p 173 note (f).

[b] The Treasury Minute of June 28, 1912, provided that thereafter the crown copyright would be reserved as to publications which fall within the last three of the above enumerated classes of government publications, but that, as to works falling within the first four classes, no steps would ordinarily be taken to enforce the rights of the crown in respect of copyright, although the copyright would be retained and enforced whenever exceptional circumstances appear to require such action. Copinger Copyright (5th ed) pp 282, 750.

See

[c] The publication of the "Nautical Almanack" for the purpose of finding the longitude at sea, in the interests of navigation, is under the control of the lords of the admiralty. Nautical Almanack Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV c 66 2).

85. Treasury Minute, June 28. 1912 (reprinted Copinger Copyright (5th ed) p 750); Treasury Minute, Aug. 31, 1887 (substance stated supra

re

St. 1 & 2 Geo. V c 46 § 36. The Act of 41 Geo. III c 107, extending the privilege of university copyright to Trinity College, Dublin, was pealed by the Copyright Act of 1842, any vested rights being reserved. St. 5 & 6 Vict. c 45 §§ 1, 27. Copinger Copyright (5th ed) p 284 note (x) inadvertently states that this statute is not repealed.

92. St. 1 & 2 Geo. V c 46 § 33. 93. Birrell Copyright p 143. In 1878 the copyright commissioners reported that the result of their inquiries showed that the University of Oxford possessed six copyrights, and the University of Cambridge had none. 8 Halsbury L. Eng. p 174 par 407.

94. St. 25 & 26 Vict. c 91. 95. See 1 & 2 Geo. V c 46 § 33 and schedule II.

96. See supra § 66.

97. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 8 L. ed. 1055; New York Times Co. v. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc., 204 Fed. 586, 123 CCA 54; De Jonge v. Breuker, etc., Co., 191 Fed. 35, 111 CCA 567 [aff 182 Fed. 150, and aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113]; Caliga v. Inter-Ocean Newspaper Co.. 157 Fed. 186, 84 CCA 634 [aff 215 U. S. 182, 30 SCt 38, 54 L. ed. 150]; State v. State Journal Co., 77 Nebr. 752, 110 NW 763.

"This right, as has been shown, does not exist at common law-it originated, if at all, under the acts of congress. No one can deny, that when the legislature are about to vest an exclusive right in an author or an inventor, they have the power to prescribe the conditions on which'

such right shall be enjoyed; and that no one can avail himself of such right who does not substantially comply with the requisitions of the law." Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 663, 8 L. ed. 1055.

"Congress was conferring a special privilege upon authors and could limit that privilege in any manner it saw fit. In order to secure a valid copyright or a valid patent, it is necessary to comply with every requirement of the law and a discussion of the wisdom or unwisdom of such requirements is wholly irrelevant. If a change in the law be needed, recourse should be had to the legislative and not to the judicial branch of the government.' New York Times Co. v. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc., 204 Fed. 586, 587, 123 CCA 54.

98. Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U. S. 123, 9 SCt 710, 33 L. ed. 76; Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 SCt 177, 32 L. ed. 547; Merrell v. Tice, 104 U. S. 557, 26 L. ed. 854; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 8 L. ed. 1055; Dejonge v. Breuker, etc., Co., 191 Fed. 35, 111 CCA 567 [aff 182 Fed. 150, and aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113]; De Jonge v. Breuker, etc., Co., 182 Fed. 150 [aff 191 Fed. 35, 111 CCA 567 (aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113)]; Record, etc., Co. v. Bromley, 175 Fed. 156; Saake v. Lederer, 174 Fed. 135, 98 CCA 571 [rev 166 Fed. 810]; Freeman v. The Trade Register, 173 Fed. 419; West Pub. Co. V. Edward Thompson Co., 169 Fed. 833 [mod on other grounds 176 Fed. 833. 100 CCA 3031; Lederer v. Saake, 166 Fed. 810 [rev on other grounds 174 Fed. 135, 98 CCA 571]; Bennett v. Carr, 96 Fed. 213, 37 CCA 453; Osgood v. A. S. Aloe Instrument Co., 83 Fed. 470; Higgins v. Keuffel, 30 Fed. 627 [aff 140 U. S. 428, 11 SCt 731, 35 L. ed. 470]; Chicago Music Co. v. J. W. Butler Paper Co., 19 Fed. 758; Baker v. Taylor, 2 F. Cas. No. 782, 2 Blatchf. 82; Boucicault v. Hart, 3 F. Cas. No. 1,692, 13 Blatchf. 47; Benn v. Leclercq. 4 F. Cas. No. 1,308; Carillo v. Shook, 5

taining copyright, and some things which were conditions precedent under the old law are no longer such;99 but the principle remains that whatever the statute requires must be accomplished as a condition of any protection under the copyright law.1 Conversely, where all the requirements of the statute have been performed on his part by the copyright

F. Cas. No. 2,407; Centennial Catalogue Co. v. Porter, 5 F. Cas. No. 2,546, 2 WklyNC (Pa.) 601; Chase v. Sanborn, 5 F. Cas. No. 2,628, 4' Cliff. 306; Clayton v. Stone, 5 F. Cas. No. 2,872, 2 Paine 382; Ewer v. Coxe, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,584, 4 Wash. C. C. 487; Farmer v. Calvert Lith., etc., Co., 8 F. Cas. No. 4,651, 1 Flipp. 228; Jollie v. Jaques, 13 F. Cas. No. 7,437, 1 Blatchf. 618 (construing the act of 1846 as to delivery to Smithsonian Institute); King v. Force, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,791, 2 Cranch C. C. 208; Lawrence v. Dana, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,136, 4 Cliff. 1; Marsh v. Warren, 16 F. Cas. No. 9,121, 14 Blatchf. 263; Osgood v. Allen, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,603, Holmes 185; Parkinson v. Laselle, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,762, 3 Sawy. 330; Pulte v. Derby, 20 F. Cas. No. 11,465, 5 McLean 328; Rossiter v. Hall, 20 F. Cas. No. 12,082, 5 Blatchf. 362; Struve v. Schwedler, 23 F. Cas. No. 13,551, 4 Blatchf. 23; Nichols v. Ruggles, 3 Day (Conn.) 145, 3 AmD 262 (holding requirement of notice directory merely); State v. State Journal Co., 77 Nebr. 752, 110 NW 763; The Law of Playwrights, 8 SoLRevNS 13.

"For 75 years it has been the settled law of this country that protection under the copyright law is granted only to those who perform the conditions essential to a perfect copyright title." Dejonge v. Breuker, etc., Co., 191 Fed. 35, 36, 111 CCA 567 [aff 182 Fed. 150, and aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113].

"The rule by which conditions precedent and subsequent are construed, in a grant, can have no application to the case under consideration; as every requisite, in both acts, is essential to the title." Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 665, 8 L. ed. 1055.

[a] Power of congress.-Congress, in making provision to vest an exclusive right in an author, has the power to prescribe the conditions on which such right shall be enjoyed; and no one can avail himself of such right who does not substantially comply with the requirements of the law. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 8 L. ed. 1055.

99. See infra §§ 171-219.

1. Universal Film Mfg. Co. V. Copperman, 212 Fed. 301 [aff 218 Fed. 577, 134 CCA 305]; Lydiard-Peterson Co. v. Woodman, 204 Fed. 921, 123 CCA 243 [reh den 205 Fed. 900, 126 CCA 434] New York Times Co. v. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc., 204 Fed. 586, 123 CCA 54. And see cases supra note 98.

Requirements under present law see infra §§ 171-197.

Requirements under former law see infra §§ 198-219.

2. White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Goff, 187 Fed. 247, 109 CCA 187.

3. Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U. S. 123, 151, 9 SCt 710, 33 L. ed. 76 (where it is said that the means of securing any right of action for infringement "are only those prescribed by congress"); Saake v. Lederer, 174 Fed. 135, 98 CCA 571 [rev 166 Fed. 810].

4. Hegeman v. Springer, 110 Fed. 374, 375, 49 CCA 86 [aff 189 U. S. 505, 23 SCt 849, 47 L. ed. 921] (holding demand and refusal not conditions precedent in action for forfeiture and penalties because: "The motion would make the right turn upon the demand and refusal, in addition to the finding in possession, which is so much more than the statute requires"); Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co., 100 Fed. 77, 81 (where, in action for penalties, the court said: "Consequently,

a

claimant, copyright exists, although registration is refused by the copyright office.2 The means of securing the right are only those specified in the statute itself. Nothing not required by the statute may be required by the court, although there are decisions which apparently disregard this rule and which to that extent must be regarded as unsound," gives a right to the Tribune 'to publish in America such cablegrams and editorials' as it chooses to 'telegraph to America from the Times,' and the latter abandons in favor of the Tribune any copyright in those telegrams SO far as publication in America is concerned. The optional rights thus acquired by the Tribune extend to all cablegrams appearing in the Times, although the purported surrender for copyrights relates to the extracts only, and until after the Tribune has both made and published its selections no means are open to the public to ascertain the portion thus excluded from use; and it further appears that many of the cablegrams in the Times are not its sole property. As the exclusive right of publication at common law terminates with the publication in London, no protection then exists beyond that expressly given by the statute. Before the amendment authorizing copyright in America on foreign publications, under prescribed conditions where the publication is simultaneous, such foreign property right was left unprotected. Under the amendment, whatever rights may be vested either in the Times, or in the Tribune through contract with it, to copyright any editorials or special matter, I am satisfied that it can be exercised only for matter distinctly set apart for the purpose and so distinguished in the publication, and that the publication in this country must be substantially identical with that in the foreign country, to bring it within the intent of the statute. The matter in controversy, as mere selections from several cablegrams and editorials in the Times, not predesignated for copyright here and not so intended on behalf of the Times, does not seem to conform to the statutory requirements." Obviously the court has here added a new condition precedent to copyright protection, namely, that the matter to be copyrighted must be "distinctly set apart for the purpose and so distinguished in the [foreign] publication, and that the publication. . must be substantially identical with that in the foreign country." This is pure judicial legislation, for there is no such requirement in the statute). (2) Additions to the statutory form of notice of copyright have been suggested. Dam v. Kirk la Shelle Co., 175 Fed. 902, 906, 99 CCA 392, 41 LRANS 1002, 20 AnnCas 1173 [aff 166 Fed. 589] (where the court said: "In the case of reservation of dramatic rights, in addition to the notice of the copyright of a magazine, it may well be that it should appear in some distinct way that such reservation of such rights to the particular article is made for the benefit of the author. Indeed, it may be that the author should contemporaneously take out in his own name a copyright covering such rights. But this question need not now be determined." These suggestions of the court are contrary to the settled principles that copyright protection can be obtained only by compliance with the statutory requirements, and that nothing not required by the statute is necessary or will be of any avail. The statute provides no method of copyrighting separately the "dramatic rights" in a story. The story may be copyrighted, and the drama made from it may be copyrighted, but the right to dramatize may not be copyrighted, except as an incident to the copyright of the story as such. See also infra § 214).

6. Bentley v. Tibbals, 223 Fed. 247, 138 CCA 489. See also West Pub. Co. v. Edward Thompson Co., 169 Fed. 833, 879-881 [rev on this point 176 Fed. 833] (distinguishing compiled matter).

book. In this case the English book covers more than 200 large pages and the original American work less than 40. One cannot ascertain what part of the English book contains the copyrighted matter taken from [a] Illustration and comment.- the American book, unless he is able (1) Where copyrighted and uncopy- to obtain from some source a copy righted matter is incorporated in a of the original work and compare it single work, it has been held that letter by letter and word by word they must be distinguished or no with the book subsequently published protection can be had, although the in England. This we do not think statutory form of notice is used, and he is called upon to do. If one inthere is no requirement of such dis- tends to assert his exclusive right crimination in the statute. Bentley to publish and sell copyrighted matv. Tibbals, 223 Fed. 247, 256, 138 CCA ter, he must so clearly indicate the 489 (where the court said: "In this matter in which he has the exclusive case the author of the English work right that the public upon inspection is informed that it 'includes the can determine the question of its Telegraph Cyphers entered according own rights therein. He cannot reto act of Congress in the year 1906, quire the public to search the marby E. L. Bentley in the office of the kets to find a copy of his copyLibrarian of Congress, at Washing- righted book, then purchase it, and ton, D. C.' But no one, on inspecting then compare it word by word with the English work, can tell what por- the uncopyrighted work. We do not tion of it has been taken from the decide in this case that Bentley has Telegraph Cyphers and what part lost his copyright in the Telegraph has not. That he can only ascertain Cyphers, so that any one is at liberty by securing a copy of the Telegraph to reprint that book. Whether he has Cyphers and comparing it word by or has not lost that right is not beword with the Code. In other words, fore us and is not decided. What we there is nothing which indicates to do decide is that he has no standing the reader what portion of the work in court to prevent by injunction the is protected by American copyright publication of the Complete Phrase and what is not, but he is left to Code, which is an uncopyrighted ascertain that fact for himself by a work, the whole of which the defendverbal comparison, word for word, of ant was at liberty to reprint, includthe American and English publica-ing the matter taken from the Teletions. The conclusion at which we graph Cyphers, although copyrighted, have arrived is that the complainant as there is nothing in the work which is not entitled to an injunction to indicates the copyrighted from the restrain the defendant from publish- uncopyrighted matter." docing and selling 'Bentley's Complete trine certainly adds a requirement Phrase Code' as prayed for in the not in the statute, and if strictly apbill. We have arrived at this con- plied would deprive very many works clusion, not because he reprinted the of protection, for it has not been matter in England without taking customary to do what is here indiout copyright in that country. That cated as necessary to be done. It is he could do without impairing any of wholly inconsistent with the Copyhis rights in the United States. But right Act of 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. his difficulty arises out of the fact 1075 c 320 §§ 3, 6, 19), which would that in his English publication of the be unworkable, if such doctrine preCode he embodied the Telegraph vailed. It seems inconsistent with Cyphers, or a substantial part of that the decision of the supreme court in work, and imported the same into the United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. MerUnited States, and sold it here, with- riam Co., 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, out any notice in it by which the 52 L. ed. 478). (2) "The defendant's public could know by inspection the counsel insisted, that if the said incopyrighted from the uncopyrighted dexes were the subject of a copyright, matter. In our opinion one who so yet it was the duty of the proprietor embodies copyrighted with uncopy- thereof, who obtained the copyright, righted matter that one reading his to express, in the title deposited and work cannot distinguish between the published, (where he was not entitled two has no right to complain if the to a copyright of the whole book,) book is republished by third parties. the matter for which he claimed It is true that Bentley did insert such copyright; that he could not obthe statutory notice in the Code by tain a valid copyright to such matwhich he directed attention to the ter, which was a very small portion fact that the Telegraph Cyphers were of the work, under a general claim included in the new publication, but to a copyright to the whole book, and the statutory notice was intended by in this case he had not only not Congress to apply to publications claimed any such copyright to the as a whole-where the author is indexes, but merely a copyright to copyrighting the work as a whole. It the report of the cases, and therefore was not intended by Congress that, had not acquired any valid copyright by inserting notice in an uncopy- to such indexes, and prayed the court righted work that it contains copy- so to instruct the jury. But the court righted matter, the author could decided, that a copyright to the whole thereby prevent the republication by book would secure to the proprietors a stranger of the uncopyrighted the exclusive right to such matter

This

in the book as was susceptible of a copyright, although such matter composed ever so small a portion of the book, and so instructed the jury, and refused to instruct said jury as requested by the counsel for the said defendant." Backus v. Gould, 7 How. (U. S.) 798, 799, 12 L. ed. 919 (where the supreme court did not pass on this point).

Component parts of copyrighted work protected see infra § 272.

7. Davies v. Bowes, 219 Fed. 178, 134 CCA 552; Lydiard-Peterson Co. v. Woodman, 204 Fed. 921, 123 CCA 243 [reh den 205 Fed. 900, 126 CCA 434]; De Jonge v. Breuker, etc., Co.. 182 Fed. 150 [aff 191 Fed. 35, 111 CCA 567 (aff 235 U. S. 33, 35 SCt 6, 59 L. ed. 113)].

8. Private Acts Relating to Copyright (Copyright Office Bul. No. 3 p 73 et seq).

[a] Failure to make timely deposits cured.-By the act of March 3, 1893, it was provided that a prior failure to make timely deposits as required by law should be cured, provided the required deposits had been made before March 1, 1893, 27 St. at L. 743.

9.

Crown Feature Film Co. v. Levy, 202 Fed. 805; Lederer v. Saake, 166 Fed. 810 [rev on other grounds 174 Fed. 135, 98 CCA 571]; WhiteSmith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 147 Fed. 226, 77 CCA 368 [aff 209 U. S. 1, 28 SCt 319, 52 L. ed. 655, 14 AnnCas 628]; Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 147 Fed. 15, 77 CCA 607, 15 LRANS 766 [aff 139 Fed. 155, and aff 210 U. S. 339, 28 SCt 722, 52 L. ed. 1086]; G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co., 140 Fed. 768 [rev on other grounds 146 Fed. 354, 76 CCA 470 (aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478)]; Bennett v. Carr, 96 Fed. 213, 37 CČA 453; Osgood v. A. S. Aloe Instrument Co., 83 Fed. 470; Baker v. Taylor, 2 F. Cas. No. 782, 2 Blatchf. 82 [cit Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591, 78 L. ed. 1055]. But see supra § 88.

[a] Strict construction as to penalty. In actions to recover the penalty imposed by Rev. St. § 4965. plaintiff must show that there has been a strict compliance with § 4956; that section should be strictly construed, because it contains the conditions precedent to the recovery of severe penalties. Bennett v. Carr, 37 CCA 453, 96 Fed. 213.

10. Strict or liberal construction of statute see supra § 88.

11. See supra § 88. See also infra § 214.

12. Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 53).

13. See Rules and Regulations for the Registration of Claims to Conyright (Copyright Office Bul. No. 15).

14. In the absence of any direct decision on this point, the federal equity and bankruptcy rules prescribed by the court under similar statutory authority afford a satisfactory analogy.

[a] The rules for practice and procedure in copyright cases prescribed by the supreme court rest on

16

work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by the act.1 15 Such publication secures and initiates copyright without further formalities,' provided only the work is one which may be copyrighted," and the copyright claimant is a person entitled to obtain a copyright thereon.18 Registration and deposit of a copy or copies of the work in the copyright office is required, but only after the copyright has been obtained by publication.19

Unpublished works. Special provision is made for copyrighting unpublished works.20

[172] (2) What Constitutes Publication. Published works are such as are printed or otherwise produced and "placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed" by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority.22 The statute thus preserves the distinction between general publication and limited or qualified publication,23 and investitive publication under the statute is such a publication as would divest all common-law rights, and operate as a dedication but for the protection of the statute, subject of course to the rule that a foreign publication may work a dedication,25 although it may be insufficient to initiate a copyright26 a point not altogether free from doubt.

[173] (3) Place of Publication. The statute merely provides that copyright may be secured by publication with the required notice of copyright, and is silent as to the place where such publication may or must be made.27 But in view of the terms of the amendatory act of 1914, it is plain that investitive publication may be made not only in the like statutory authority. See Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 25).

15. Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 9); Universal Film Mfg. Co. v. Copperman, 212 Fed. 301 [aff 218 Fed. 577, 134 CCA 305].

31

32

37

at L. 311), amending Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 12). Citizenship and residence of claimant see supra §§ 157-160.

29. See Rules and Regulations for the Registration of Claims to Copyright (Copyright Office Bul. No. 15) rule 33, and forms referred to therein.

[a] "Works intended for sale or general distribution must first be printed with the statutory form of 30. See infra § 211. See also suCopyright notice inscribed on every pra § 92. copy. intended to be circulated." [a] The former English statutes Rules and Regulations for Registra-have received a construction requirtion of Claims to Copyright (Copy- ing investitive publication to be right Office Bul. No. 15) rule 25. made within the limits of the United 16. New York Times Co. v. Star | Kingdom. See infra § 224. Co., 195 Fed. 110; National Cloak, 31. The notice of copyright is reetc., Co. v. Kaufman, 189 Fed. 215. "Copyright under the act of Congress entitled: 'An act to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright,' approved March 4, 1909, is ordinarily secured by printing and publishing a copyrightable work with a notice of claim in the form prescribed by the statute. Registration can be made after such publication, but the statute expressly provides. in certain cases, for registration of manuscript_works." Rules and Regulations for Registration of Claims to Copyright (Copyright Office Bul. No. 15) rule 1.

quired to be affixed only to copies "published or offered for sale in the United States." Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 9). This seems to imply that the publication with notice, which initiates the copyright, shall be "in the United States." See United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co., 208 U. S. 260. 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478.

32. See supra § 89.

33. [a] The inconsistencies and obscurity thus introduced appear from the following statement of the statutory provisions as they now stand: Section 9 provides that copyright is secured by publication with notice of copyright, and that such notice shall be affixed to each copy published in the United States. Notice has never been required in foreign editions (see infra § 219) and the rule was not changed by this statute (see infra § 194). Section 12 provides that after copyright has been secured "by publication with the notice of copyright" two copies of the work shall be sent to the copyright office, etc. The amendment of 1914 provides: "Or if the work is by an author who is a citizen or subject of a foreign state or

Rule under former statutes see in-nation and has been published in a fra § 209-211.

25. See supra § 45. 26. See infra § 173. Ad interim copyrights for foreign books see infra 193. 27. Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 9).

28. Act March 28, 1914 (38 St.

foreign country, one complete copy of the best edition then published in such foreign country." This can only mean that copyright can be secured by publishing abroad with the copyright rotice, and yet by express provision of § 9 such notice need not be used abroad. Therefore after first

publication abroad, the notice could be omitted and the copyright would still remain valid. Deposit of copies and registration are not necessary to the validity of the copyright, but can be made at any time before suit for infringement is filed (see infra §§ 174, 175). It would therefore be possible to infringe the copyright of a foreign work never published in this country and bearing no notice of copyright, and never deposited or registered in the copyright office. This also discriminates against books published abroad in the English language, because such books must be deposited, and an interim copyright secured, within thirty days from publication, or they will fall into the public domain, and after an interim copyright is secured, such books must be manufactured and published within the United States. Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 §§ 21, 22).

Ad interim copyright for foreign books see infra § 193.

Domestic manufacture see supra § 100.

34. United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co., 208 U. S. 260, 264, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478 (where Holmes, J., said: "Of course, Congress could attach what conditions it saw fit to its grant"). See also supra § 167. See also su

35. See infra § 211. pra §§ 45, 92.

36. See supra §§ 171-173. 37. See infra §§ 176-180.

38. Act March 4, 1909 (35 St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 12); New York Times Co. v. Sun Printing, etc., Assoc., 204 Fed. 586, 123 CCA 54.

"After publication of the work with the copyright notice inscribed, two complete copies of the best edition of the work must be sent to the Copyright Office, with a proper application for registration correctly filled out and a money order for the amount of the legal fee." Rules and Regulations for Registration of Claims to Copyright (Copyright Office Bul. No. 15) rule 24.

[a] Mailing application and copies. "All mail matter intended for the Copyright Office should be ad