Previous statutory form

Exact phra

seology

required

portion of such copies or of the margin, back, permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted, his name shall appear. But in the case of works in which copyright is subsisting when this Act shall go into effect, the notice of copyright may be either in one of the forms prescribed herein or in one of those prescribed by the Act of June eighteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four."

Under the law of 1874, the prescribed notice was in the old form (Rev. Stat. 4962), "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year, by A. B., in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington," with the optional alternative of the form "Copyright, 18—, by A. B." Under the new code the latter form is preserved, with the alternative of the provision "Copr.," with date and name, but the longer form may be used on books copyrighted under the earlier acts, even if reprinted after the passage of the later act. Except for books previously copyrighted, the longer form is not now the legal notice, and its use would be dangerous, as it does not contain the specific word copyright, or its abbreviation, now made an obligatory part of the notice. While in Osgood v. Aloe in 1897, the omission of the name from the notice, though on the title-page, and in Record & Guide Co. v. Bromley in 1910, the omission of the date, though indicated by the date of the periodical in the line below, were held to void the copyright, such addition as the words "published by" has been held, as in Hills v. Hoover in 1905, a mere superfluity not voiding copyright.

The exact phraseology and order of words must be followed, and it has been held that any inaccuracy in the name of the copyright proprietor, as in the English case of Low v. Routledge, by Vice-Chancellor Kinders

ley, in 1864, or in the date of the entry, as in the American case of Baker v. Taylor in 1848, when 1847 was put for 1846, makes the copyright invalid.

The name in the copyright notice (C. O. Rule 24) Name must be the real name of a living person or of a firm or corporate body or the trade name in actual use, and may not be a pseudonym or pen-name or other makebelieve. A copyright notice should not be in the name of one person for the benefit of another; the beneficiary's name should be the one printed. A publisher may take out a copyright for an author, however, in which case the publisher's name and not the author's name will be given, unless the publisher makes application as the agent of the author-claimant. The name in the copyright notice must correspond fully with the real name as given in the application, but an ob、 jection that N. Sarony instead of Napoleon Sarony was not the real name, was quashed in 1884, in BurrowGiles Lith. Co. v. Sarony, by the U. S. Supreme Court. The date of copyright notice, being that of publi- Date cation, should correspond with the imprint date on the original edition; but on later printings or editions, where the date of imprint is changed, the copyright notice would of course show the earlier date of the original edition. Thus a book first published in 1911 could not bear copyright notice of 1910 date, which would mean that copyright was registered before instead of after publication, which is not possible under the new law; nor should an edition of 1910 bear copyright notice of 1911, as the application and notice should state the actual year of publication; and the date of 1911 in imprint where the copyright notice is of 1910, would be correct only on a later edition, as above stated. A book may be printed, however, in a certain year and not published till a later year, in which case the copyright notice would be of later

Accidental omission

date than the imprint date; thus the Copyright Office registered in 1910, under the new law, a copyright on a work with the imprint of 1904, on assurance that though printed in 1904, the work was not actually published until 1910. Under the old law, where, as stated above, a copyright notice later than the actual copyright was disallowed as claiming protection beyond the copyright term, a later decision, in 1888, in Callaghan v. Myers, held, that where a copyright notice gave the year 1866, while the true date was 1867, there was no harm done to the public, because a year of the copyright, which really ended in 1895 instead of 1894, was given to the public, whereas in the previous case an additional year was claimed. Doubt was thrown upon this decision by Judge Wallace in Schumacher v. Wogram, also in 1888. In Snow v. Mast in 1895, the substitution for 1894 of the abbreviated '94, and in Stern v. Remick in 1910, the use of words or Roman numerals for Arabic, were upheld.

An important safeguard, new in copyright law, is enacted in the provision (sec. 20): "That where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this Act with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, but shall prevent the recovery of damages against an innocent infringer who has been misled by the omission of the notice; and in a suit for infringement no permanent injunction shall be had unless the copyright proprietor shall reimburse to the innocent infringer his reasonable outlay innocently incurred if the court, in its discretion, shall so direct."

It is further provided (sec. 19): "That the notice

of copyright shall be applied, in the case of a book or Place of other printed publication, upon its title-page or the notice page immediately following, or if a periodical either upon the title-page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading, or if a musical work either upon its title-page or the first page of music: Provided, That one notice of copyright in each volume or in each number of a newspaper or periodical published shall suffice."

Although the code of 1909 relieves the copyright proprietor from permanent forfeiture in the case of an accidental omission of the copyright notice from certain copies (sec. 20), the statute is otherwise specific, and there seems to be no means of relief where the copyright notice is, however innocently, in the wrong place or in the wrong form. Thus in 1909, in Freeman v. Trade Register, the U. S. Circuit Court held that where the copyright notice of a periodical appeared on the editorial page, which was not the first page of text, the copyright was voided. The copyright notice can probably, however, be placed safely and preferably on the first page, being the title-page, of a specially copyrighted part of a book, as an introduction preceding a non-copyright work or an index or appended notes, or upon specific illustrations; and this is perhaps preferable in copyrighting editions with such features of works otherwise in the public domain. In the case of articles in a periodical or parts of a composite work separately copyrighted or registered, the copyright notice should appear on the same page as the title heading.

The proviso (sec. 19) that one notice of copyright One notice in each volume or in each number of a periodical shall sufficient suffice is complementary to the provision (sec. 3) by which a copyright protects all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, and gives to

Separate volumes

the proprietor of a composite work or periodical all the rights he would have if each part were individually copyrighted. It means that there need be no repetition of the general copyright notice on different portions of a book or periodical. In West Pub. Co. v. Thompson Co., under the old law, Judge Ward, in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1910, overruled the defense that the copyright was not valid because the copyright notice did not repeat the several copyright notices originally protecting the several parts of the compilation; and this view, that the general copyright notice protects all copyrighted and copyrightable parts, is now specifically embodied in the statute. The proviso (sec. 61) “that only one registration at one fee shall be required in the case of several volumes of the same book deposited at the same time" indicates that one copyright entry suffices for several volumes simultaneously published, but each separate volume should contain the notice. Volumes published separately, not only in successive years but at successive dates within the year, should be separately registered, and if published separately in successive years, must each bear its copyright notice for the year of publication this being the direct sequence from the provision that copyright runs from the specific date of publication and not from the year or date of registration. The Copyright Office will, however, under the law, register for one fee volumes or parts deposited at the same time, though published at various times. In the case of a book issued in successive parts, of which only the first part includes a titlepage or title headings, the law is not specific; but it seems probable that, in default of copyright notice and registration for each part, the parts not bearing copyright notice might be legally reprinted, and that the safer course is to place the copyright notice on the