Description of artistic work Portraits New York, through Judge Ward, who said: “As pictures only represent the artist's idea of what the author has expressed in words, they do not infringe a copyrighted book or drama and should not be enjoined." That illustrations may be protected as part of a book without reference to the engravings act, was held in Marshall v. Bull, in 1901, in the English Court of Appeal, which held also that though electrotype blocks had been legally sold, unauthorized reproduction from such blocks constituted infringement. Likewise, a description in words of a copyrighted work of art is probably permissible without infringement of copyright, when the work is published or publicly exhibited. But this does not hold good in the case of an unpublished or privately exhibited work, as was held in 1849 in the case of Prince Albert v. Strange, where a descriptive catalogue of unpublished etchings by Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort was enjoined, as well as the exhibition of prints therefrom unlawfully obtained. In the case of portraits, whether by painting, sculpture or photography, an important question as to ownership arises. A portrait paid for by the subject or a person other than the artist is the property, for copyright as well as other purposes, exclusively of that person; but if an artist produces a portrait at his own expense, even if by the suggestion of another person, the right to copyright remains with the artist. The general principle was best stated by Judge Wheeler in 1894, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, in Press Pub. Co. v. Falk, where the World was held to have infringed the copyright in the photograph of an actress, copyrighted by the photographer and not paid for by her, though a complimentary copy, given to the actress, had been sent by her to the newspaper. "When a person has a negative taken and photograph made, for pay, in the usual course, the work is done for the person so procuring it to be done, and the negative, so far as it is a picture or capable of producing pictures of that person, and all photographs made from it, belong to that person; and neither the artist nor any one else has any right to make pictures from the negative or copy the photographs, if not otherwise published, for any one else. But when a person submits himself or herself as a public character to a photographer for the taking of a negative, and the making of photographs therefrom for the photographer, the negative and the right to make photographs from it belong to him. He is the author and proprietor of the photograph, and may perfect the exclusive right to make copies by copyright." The same principle was upheld in the closely similar English case of Ellis v. Ogden, in 1894, by Justice Collins in the Queen's Bench Division. But in the case of Ellis v. Marshall, in 1895, Justice Charles in the same court held that where two actors had been invited by a photographer to sit for him in costume and some photographs had also been taken in plain clothes, of which the actors purchased copies, they were entitled to authorize publication in a magazine. It may be noted that New York and other states have statutes forbidding portraiture of persons without their consent; but this prohibition would probably not apply to photographing of a crowd, unless the portrait of a special person were lifted out or made prominent. A photographer may not exhibit a photograph of a patron, as in his shop window, without the sitter's consent. The employer of an artist in other work as well as Right of portraiture may become ipse facto the copyright pro- employer prietor. In 1871, in Stannard v. Harrison, where a wall map had been made by an engraver from rough Photographs sketch and material and from directions given by the Photographs, a modern development since the early copyright laws, were first included with negatives in the American act of 1865, in respect to which the action of Congress was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1884 in the decisive case of BurrowGiles Lith. Co. v. Sarony, and in the English fine arts copyright act of 1862. They are specifically named (sec. 5, j) in the new American code, and are included specifically or impliedly under copyright protection in most countries. The peculiar circumstance that the skill of the photographic artist is not necessarily shown in the composition of the picture taken, but more usually in the selection of subject or point of view and treatment in the process, leads to complexities as to authorship, ownership, etc. It is unnecessary and indeed undesirable to copyright separately a photograph of a copyrighted work, of which the general copyright is comprehensive of all reproduc tions, but the original copyright notice including the name of the artist must appear on each photograph or its mount. An original photograph of an uncopyrighted or uncopyrightable subject may be copyrighted as a photograph, as was held with respect to natural scenery in 1903, in Cleland v. Thayer, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a colored photograph of a Colorado pass was protected. Where a photographer had posed a woman and a child characteristically, Judge Wheeler in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York held, in 1891, in Falk v. Brett Lith. Co., where defendant had merely reversed the photograph ina lithographic reprint, that the photograph was copyrightable and that the photographer was the author. And this doctrine, that the posing and treatment of a photograph subject gave justification for copyright, was also upheld in the case of a portrait of an actress in the same year in Falk v. Gast by Judge Coxe. In the English case of Bolton v. Aldin et al., in 1895, Justice Grantham in the Queen's Bench Division held that the photograph of a tiger was infringed by a drawing from the photograph published in the Sketch magazine. But the copyrighting of a photograph of an uncopyrighted subject cannot prevent the photographing of the same subject independently by others, nor can the use of a "general idea" be prevented. Under the new American code, the fee for registering a photograph is but fifty cents, if a certificate is not desired, and the new Copyright Office Rules hold that in moving picture films only one registration is requisite, the entire series being counted as a single photograph." 66 Whether living pictures, tableaux vivants, infringe a Tableaux work of art, is a difficult question, determinable only vivants and moving by the circumstances of each case. Moving pictures pictures telling a dramatic story may infringe a dramatic or Exclusions and inclusions construed Architectural works even literary work, as well as possibly a work of art, as was decided in the case of Harper v. Kalem Co. But the House of Lords, in 1894, in the case of Hanfstaengl v. Baines, where the proprietor of the copyright in paintings sued the proprietors of the Graphic for reproducing by sketches living pictures exhibited at a music hall, patterned after the paintings, decided that the word "design" in the English law did not cover the tableaux at the music hall. It is probable, however, that an exact reproduction, as nearly as may be, of a painting at a public place, might be held an infringement. In 1903 the Circuit Court of Appeals through Judge Buffington, in Edison v. Lubin, overruled the defense that each picture making up a moving picture series should be separately registered for copyright. But separable parts of a composite design, when used separately, must bear separate copyright notice, as was held in 1910 in De Jonge v. Breuker & Kessler by Judge McPherson in the U. S. Circuit Court. A shadow-trick perforated card, giving an outline of the picture "Ecce Homo" when held between a light and a screen, was held by Vice-Chancellor Bacon, in Cable v. Marks, in 1882, not to be subject of copyright. Playing cards have been included as prints by an English decision. Architectural works are not protected as such under the American code, the decision of the Congressional Committees being adverse to this proposal. They are specifically included in the new British code. It is possible that they might be included under the general designation of works of art, and drawings or models for buildings might be copyrighted as "drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character." The question, however, is one of much doubt. In 1903, in Wright v. Eisle, the Appellate |