ing case

American Tobacco Co., et al., which was decided by the The WerckU. S. Supreme Court in 1907, in an opinion written by meister leadJustice Day. The English artist Sadler had sold, in 1894, to Werckmeister of the Berlin Photographic Co. the copyright in his picture "Chorus," which he exhibited at the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1894, and the design had been reproduced by the American Lithograph Co. for use on an American Tobacco Co. label, though the photograph had been given protection by copyright. In reply to the claim of the infringers that such exhibition constituted dedication to the public, the Supreme Court's decision quoted from Slater on "The law relating to copyright and trade-marks."

opinion

"It is a fundamental rule that to constitute publi- u. S. cation there must be such a dissemination of the Supreme Court work of art itself among the public as to justify the belief that it took place with the intention of rendering such work common property," the court adding, "and that author instances as one of the occasions that does not amount to a general publication the exhibition of a work of art at a public exhibition where there are by-laws against copies or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege. We think this doctrine is sound and the result of the best considered cases." The court said further: "We do not mean to say that the public exhibition of a painting or statue where all might see and freely copy it might not amount to publication within the statute, regardless of the artist's purpose or notice of reservation of rights which he takes no measure to protect."

In fact, in Pierce & Bushnell Co. v. Werckmeister, in 1896, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through

exhibition

hazardous

Unrestricted Judge Colt, had held that the exhibition of Naujok's painting of St. Cecilia, in Berlin and Munich, without copyright notice on the original work, constituted publication and dedication, and therefore denied protection to photographic copies thereafter copyrighted and published.

Reservation on sale

Publication construed

That the sale of the original work of art as a material object does not involve the transfer of the copyright is a direct application in the new American code of previous judicial decisions. In Werckmeister v. Springer Lith. Co., in 1894, where the defense contended that the purchaser of a painting was the person authorized to become the copyright proprietor, this contention was absolutely overruled, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, by Judge Townsend. But it may nevertheless be desirable to include in any contract of sale a specific reservation of copyright, especially in the case of works executed for public authorities or to be exhibited in a public place. In Dielman v. White, in 1900, Judge Lowell in the U. S. Circuit Court in Massachusetts declined to enjoin a photograph of certain mosaics by Dielman in the Library of Congress, the original cartoon for which as sent to Venice, as well as the mosaic work itself, bore copyright notice, on the ground that the correspondence with the government constituting the contract, did not clearly reserve to the artist the right to copyright and prevent copying, — though this decision may be questioned.

The courts are disposed to limit the definition of publication to insure the fullest protection of an author's right. In Werckmeister v. Springer Lith. Co. it was further held by Judge Townsend that the printing in an exhibition catalogue of a cut of a painting was for the information of patrons and was not publication. In the same case the defense contended that the sale of

an earlier replica of the plaintiff's painting constituted a publication and forfeited copyright, but the court held that the replica was not a copy but was made beforehand to assist in the preparation of the painting afterward copyrighted, and that there was no publication.

In Falk v. Gast, in 1893, where the defense claimed that the copyright notice was omitted from published copies, referring to a sample sheet of miniature reproductions sent to dealers for their information and convenience, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Shipman, held that this issue of sample sheets did not constitute publication. This doctrine of limitation had a curious application in Harper v. Shoppell, in 1886, in which Judge Wallace, in the U. S. District Court, held, where an electrotyper had sold to a third party an unauthorized electrotype of a copyrighted illustration, that the copyright law was not violated because the illustration had not been printed or published.

The artist-author or the proprietor of an artistic Danger of copyright should be most careful to comply with the forfeiture statutory requirements as to notice and other formalities, as otherwise copyright may be forfeited. Several court decisions indicate that the copyright notice should be placed on the original when exhibited, even if copies are not then reproduced for sale; and as the question is not made quite clear in the new code, it is wise to follow this indication. In the original trial in 1902 of the Werckmeister case, Judge Thomas in the U. S. Circuit Court held that the omission of copyright notice from the exhibited original waived the copyright, but his decision of the case was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on other grounds as previously stated, and this particular point remains unsettled.

Limited use and license

Copyright is not forfeited where a notice properly affixed has been omitted in later use beyond the control of the copyright proprietor. "If copied afterwards or put upon a new mount the complainant should not suffer," said Judge Coxe in Falk v. Gast in reference to copies from which the notice had been separated. In Bennett v. Carr, in 1899, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Thomas, nonsuited the complainant because he had not deposited a written description, in addition to filing identifying copies, both formalities being required under the old law.

The principle is especially important regarding works of art that a copyright proprietor may grant specific license for the limited use of his work; and this has many times been upheld by judicial decisions. In the American courts, such cases have usually been settled by preliminary injunction, without further trial, so that most of the cases are unreported in the law digests, as in that of Miles v. American News Co., in 1898, where General Miles obtained a preliminary injunction restraining the distribution by the defendants of "Remington's frontier sketches," including illustrations made for and copyrighted in General Miles' "Personal recollections." In the English case of Nicholls v. Parker, in 1901, it was held that a license to print illustrations in the Graphic did not permit their use in another periodical of the defendant despite the defense of "custom of the trade," which the judge characterized as "ridiculous." In the important case of Green v. Irish Independent, the Court of Appeal held that the newspaper, though acting "in good faith and without knowledge," was guilty of infringement in printing an illustration sent to it as an advertisement which the proprietor had not licensed for such use. Where, in Guggenheim v. Leng, in

1896, the periodical Sports printed and sold as a separate sheet an illustration licensed for use in the periodical, it was held in the Queen's Bench Division that publication and sale of the supplement separately from the paper was beyond the terms of the license and therefore an infringement.

of use

Copyright in a work of art is dependent upon char- Character, acter rather than use. "A picture is none the less a not method picture and none the less a subject of copyright that it is used for an advertisement," said Justice Holmes in the U. S. Supreme Court, in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lith. Co., in 1903, the leading case on this subject, in which three lithographs designed for a circus poster were protected. In Mott v. Clow, in 1896, Judge Grosscup in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois had held that illustrations, in this instance of bathtubs in a trade catalogue, which "are mere advertisements,' are not entitled to copyright; and in Schumacher v. Wogram, in 1888, it had been held by Judge Wallace that a picture of a young woman holding a bouquet intended for a cigar label could not be protected as copyright, but should be registered as a trade-mark. "The distinction here," said Judge Wallace, "seems to be that a picture expressly intended as a label should be considered a trade-mark, though a picture which may be used for a label is not for this reason excluded from copyright." An artistic design for paper-box covers was held copyrightable in 1910 in De Jonge v. Breuker & Kessler, in the U. S. Circuit Court, by Judge McPherson, who also held that the same subject could not be protected both under copyright and as trade-mark.

That an illustration of a person, incident or scene Illustration in a copyright work is not an infringement of its copyright, was indicated in 1909 in Harper v. Kalem Co., in the opinion of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in