This section refers to the author and his family, and not to assignees. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23.

A renewal will not be valid unless there is a valid copyright for the original term. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591.

SEC. 4955. Copyrights shall be assignable in law, by any instrument of writing, and such assignment shall be recorded in the office of the librarian of Congress within sixty days after its execution; in default of which it shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice.

Statute Revised—July 8, 1870, ch. 230, ? 89, 16 Stat. 213.
Prior Statute-June 30, 1834, ch. 157, 1, 4 Stat. 728.

A parol promise for a good consideration, to transfer an interest in a copyright is binding, for the making of the assignment merely concerns the manner of the performance of the promise. Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. 562.

The statute does not say what interest may be assigned, but there is no sufficient reason for preventing an author from conveying a distinct portion of his right. Divisibility as well as assignability enhances the value of his property, for he may find a purchaser able and willing to pay for a part, but not for the whole of his copyright. Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law. Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

The exclusive right to act and represent a drama is distinct from that of printing and publishing, and may be assigned for certain territory and a limited time. Roberts v. Myers. 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

A mere assignment of a copyright will not pass a right to a renewal subsequently granted. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23; Cowen v. Banks, 24 How. Pr. 72.

An assignee may maintain an action, although his assignment has never been recorded, for it is valid between the parties. Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M. 497.

A contract to publish a work and give the author a certain price for each copy published, does not give the publisher the sole and exclusive right to publish the work. Willis v. Tibbals, 33 N. Y. Sup. 220.

A mere contract for printing and publishing a book does not usually contain anything about the copyright. That is ordinarily retained by the author unless there is an agreement or understanding that the name of the publisher shall be used for that purpose. Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean 328. If a publisher takes a copyright in his own name under a contract to pay a royalty to the author, he holds it for the purposes of the contract, and can not assign the copyright or publish the work except upon the terms of the contract. Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean 328.

If a contract provides for a first and second edition, and allows the party to print as many as he can sell, the mere fact of inserting the words "third edition " in the title-page of the third impression can not cut off rights expressly given in the agreement. Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean 328.

If a party who has made a contract with a publisher in his capacity as reporter, is deprived of his office, the legal title to his manuscript not then published, nor given to the publisher for publication, will not vest in the publisher, although the contract stipulated that it should be deemed an assignment of the copyright for all matter furnished under it. Little v. Hall, 18 How. 165.

If an author delivers his manuscript to a printer for publication with an agreement that he shall be entitled to the copyright forever, this gives him a right to the renewal. Paige v. Banks, 13 Wall. 608; s. c. 7 Blatch. 152.

A contract to reprint any literary work the copyright to which has been secured to the author, is void unless it is entered into with the consent of the author or his assignee, and the printer who executes the contract with knowledge of the rights of the author can not recover anything for his labor. Nichols v. Ruggles, 3 Day 145.

If the joint owners of a copyright make an agreement among themselves in regard to the printing of the work, neither can defeat it by setting up his right as owner to publish. Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. 562.

A relinquishment of a copyright in favor of the State by accepting an office under a statute which so vests it, may be regarded as an assignment by operation of law. Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 165; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 362.

If an assignment does not contain any condition by which the title is to be divested upon the failure of the assignee to perform the covenants therein contained, the only remedy of the assignor is by an action for a breach of the covenants. Mackaye v. Mallory, 22 O. G. 945; s. c. 12 Fed. Rep. 328.

Although an instrument has never been copyrighted, yet a transfer thereof is a sufficient consideration for a promissory note. Cates v. Bales, 78 Ind. 285.

A creditor can not levy an execution upon the unpublished manuscript of his debtor. Dart v. Woodhouse, 40 Mich. 399.

The incorporeal right to multiply copies of a work, being intangible and resting altogether in grant, is not subject to seizure and sale under an execution at common law, but may be reached by a creditor's bill in equity, where the court may compel the debtor to execute an assignment. Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 528.

The property in an engraved plate of a map and the copyright of the map are altogether different and independent of each other, and a sale of the engraved plate under an execution will not give the purchaser a right to print and publish the map. Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 528; Stephens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447.

If an author sells the copyright and the matter to be printed, and delivers the matter to the vendee, and the consideration is properly delivered or to be delivered to the author or another for his use, or is money to be paid to the author or another for his use, such property or chose in action may be subjected to the payment of the author's debts. Cooper v. Gunn, 4 B. Mon. 594.

The statute confers upon all the owners full power, without exacting any obligation in return, to print, publish and sell. It gives no superior right to either. Each can exercise his own right alone, without using or receiving any aid or benefit whatever from the title or property of the others. When one owner at his own expense publishes and sells the book, he is not liable to account to the co-owners for the profits. Carter v. Bailey, 64 Me. 458.

SEC. 4956. No person shall be entitled to a copyright unless he shall, before publication, deliver at the office of the librarian of Congress or deposit in the mail addressed to the librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, a printed copy of the title of the book or other article, or a description of the painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statuary, or a model or design for a work of the fine arts, for which he desires a copyright, nor unless he shall also, within ten days from the publication thereof, deliver at the office of the librarian of Congress, or deposit in the mail addressed to the librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, two copies of such copyright book or other article, or in case of a painting, drawing, statue, statuary, model, or design for a work of the fine arts, a photograph of the same.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 90, 16 Stat. 213.

Prior Statutes-May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 3, 1 Stat. 125.-February 3, 1831, ch. 16, § 4, 4 Stat. 437.

Congress by the statute created the right, and no protection can be claimed unless its provisions have been complied with. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Bartlett v. Crittenden, 5 McLean 32; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 165; Ewer v. Coxe, 4 Wash. C. C. 487; Baker v. Taylor, 2 Blatch. 82; Jones v. Thorne, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 408; Potter v. McPherson, 28 N. Y. Supr. 559.

Although an author writes under a nom de plume, yet he has no exclusive right to the use of that name for writings that have never been copyrighted. Clemens v. Belford, 14 Fed. 728; s. c. 15 C. L. N. 153.

The title of a book when connected with the name of the person by whom it was composed indicates its origin sufficiently to require its use to be protected as a trade-mark. Potter v. McPherson, 28 N. Y. Supr. 559.

Any person shall be entitled to copyright who before publication, 1st, shall deliver to the librarian a printed copy of the title of the book; and, 2d, shall within ten days after the publication thereof deliver to the librarian two copies of the same. In order to secure a copyright of a book or dramatic composition, the work must be published within a reasonable time after the filing of the title, and two copies be delivered to the librarian. Boucicault v. Hart, 13 Blatch. 47; vide Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

The deposit of a title is sufficient although the title-page of the book contains words that are not found in the title, if they are immaterial and no part of the name or title. What the statute requires to be deposited is "a printed copy of the title." The language is not "a printed copy of the title-page," that is, a printed copy of the page containing the title. Donnelly v. Ivers, 20 Blatch. 381.

The deposit of a title is sufficient although the title-page of the book does not contain all the words that were in the title deposited, if the words omitted are no part of the substantial title. Donnelly v. Ivers, 20 Blatch. 381.

If the publication is made before a deposit of a printed copy of the title, the person is not entitled to a copyright. Baker v. Taylor, 2 Blatch. 82; Chase v. Sanborn, 6 O. G. 932; s. c. 4 Cliff. 306; Struve v. Schwedler, 4 Blatch. 23; Parkinson v. Lasalle, 3 Saw. 331.

The mere delivery of a copy of a report to the State before the deposit of the copy of the title with the librarian is not a publication. Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; s. c. 10 Biss. 139.

If the copy of the title and the copies of the book are deposited with the librarian on the same day, the presumption is that the filing of the copy of the title preceded the deposit of the copies of the book. Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; s. c. 10 Biss. 139.

A sale naturally imports publication. As a purchaser has a right to know the contents of a book and make them known to others, the presumption is that a publication followed a sale. Baker v. Taylor, 2 Blatch. 82.

The right accrues from the time a copy of the title of the book is deposited in the librarian's office. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591.

No copyright is valid unless two copies of the book are delivered to the librarian of Congress within the prescribed time. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Chase v. Sanborn, 6 O. G. 932; s. c. 4 Cliff. 306; Struve v. Schwedler, 4 Blatch. 23; Parkinson v. Lasalle, 3 Saw. 331; vide Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatch. 618; Nichols v. Ruggles, 3 Day 145.

If the work consists of several volumes, the delivery of the copies of the first volume within the prescribed time, and of the copies of the other volumes before any piracy is committed, or any action is brought therefor, is sufficient. Dwight v. Appleton, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 195.

imend

1891

If there has been no publication, no copies of the book need be deposited with the librarian. Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

If the label is published prior to the registration in the patent office, the registration is void. Marsh v. Warren, 14 O. G. 678; s. c. 14 Blatch. 263. The words "works of fine arts" are used in their proper and customary sense, and do not include printed balloons intended to be cut apart and manufactured into balloons. Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 17 O. G. 1153; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 217.

SEC. 4957. The librarian of Congress shall record the name of such copyright book or other article, forthwith, in a book to be kept for that purpose, in the words following: "Library of Congress, to wit: Be it remembered that on the day of A. B., of hath deposited in this office the title of a book [map, chart or otherwise, as the case may be, or description of the article], the title or description of which is in the following words, to wit: [here insert the title or description], the right whereof he claims as author [originator, or proprietor, as the case may be], in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting copyrights. C. D., librarian of Congress." And he shall give a copy of the title or description, under the seal of the librarian of Congress, to the proprietor, whenever he shall require it. Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 91, 16 Stat. 213.

Prior Statutes-May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 3, 1 Stat. 125.-Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, § 4, 4 Stat. 437.

A copy of the record is prima facie evidence that a printed title was deposited. Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

SEC. 4958. The librarian of Congress shall receive, from the persons to whom the services designated are rendered, the following fees:

First. For recording the title or description of any copyright book or other article, fifty cents.

Second. For every copy under seal of such record actually given to the person claiming the copyright, or his assigns, fifty cents.