Division of the N. Y. Supreme Court, through Judge Woodward, held, where an architect had filed plans with the building department which he claimed were copied in a house of the defendant, which plans had not been copyrighted, that the filing of the plans in a public office constituted publication and as there were no copyrighted copies, there was no case at common or copyright law.

A copy of a copy is an infringement of the original Copy of a work and incidentally of the direct copy, unless the copy latter is published without proper copyright notice by authority of the proprietor of copyright in the original. This was held in 1892, in Lucas v. Williams, by the Queen's Bench, where a photograph from an engraving was held an infringement of the original painting; and the decision of Judge McPherson in the U. S. Circuit Court in Pennsylvania non-suiting, in Champney v. Haag, in 1903, the proprietor of a copyright painting because the offending photograph infringed only the copyrighted photograph from which it was directly taken, is not considered good law. A photograph may infringe the copyright in statuary, as was held in 1907, in Bracken v. Rosenthal, in the U.S. Circuit Court.

As to altered copies and alterations, there have Alterations been many judicial decisions, the gist of which is that a copy is not less an infringement because it alters details, provided there is copying of a substantial part; that a copy in another medium not exactly reproducing the original or a copy of it, is nevertheless an infringement; that a substantial alteration, or adaptation of an existing work, may in itself be copyrightable, but that slight alterations will not justify the copyrighting of a work in the public domain; and that an artist has the right to prevent alteration of his original work by a subsequent owner, as involving

Alterations

damage to his professional reputation. Where a copyrighted portrait of Lillian Russell was combined with a portrait of another actress, the composite photograph was held to be a violation of the copyright, in Springer Lith. Co. v. Falk, in 1894, by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Lacombe. So in the English case of Bolton v. London Exhibitions Co., in 1898, where a lithographer copied the outline of a lion from a copyrighted photograph, and filled in details from natural histories in making a circus poster, Justice Mathew in the Queen's Bench Division held that there had been reproduction of the photograph and that a work of art had been "vulgarized unlawfully." Where certain etchings and engravings had been copied by the Brooklyn Photogravure Co., omitting the tints, plate mark and title, it was held in 1892, in Fishel v. Lueckel, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York that this was an infringement; said Judge Townsend: "The appropriation of a part of the work is no less an infringement than the appropriation of the whole, provided 'the alleged infringing part contains any substantial repetitions of any material parts which are original and distinctive.'" And where a photograph of Julia Marlowe was reproduced in a lithograph, with many points of dissimilarity, some of them because of difference in process, it was held in Falk v. Donaldson Lith. Co., in 1893, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, that the differences did not constitute a defense. In Dr. Gaunsaulus's book, "The Man of Galilee," well-known pictures were altered substantially and artistically, as by the omission of a spinning wheel from a picture of the Nativity. Copies made from these illustrations were enjoined, though the original pictures were noncopyrighted, in Monarch Book Co. v. Neil, in 1900, by

Judge Grosscup in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois. But a slight alteration, by the addition on the negative of a cane, thus put into the hands of a person in a photograph not copyrighted in its original form, was held not to justify copyright, in Snow v. Laird, in 1900, by Judge Woods in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the N. Y. Supreme Court, in the common law case of Dodge v. Allied Arts Co., in 1903, where the plaintiff had painted four historical scenes on commission which the defendants proposed to have altered, an injunction pending suit was granted by Judge McCall, thus upholding the common law or equity right of an artist to be protected against such misuse of his work.

For the infringement of a work of art the copyright Remedies proprietor is entitled (sec. 25) to an injunction, the forfeiture of infringing copies and to damages “as well as all the profits . . or in lieu of actual damages and profits such damages as to the court shall appear to be just," not less than $250 nor more than $5000, except that "in the case of a newspaper reproduction of a copyrighted photograph such damages shall not exceed $200 nor be less than $50." These damages, within the limits stated, may be assessed by the court in the case of painting, statue or sculpture at ten dollars, and in the case of any other works at one dollar, "for every infringing copy made or sold by or found in the possession of the infringer or his agents or employees." Under the old law, damages were confined to copies found in possession, and the courts were constrained to apply this literally though in several recorded cases with evident injustice.

Copyright in artistic works in the United States Artistic copyhas always been covered under the general copy- right term right acts, including the code of 1909 providing for copyright for twenty-eight and renewal for a second

British practice

twenty-eight years, and this is true also in Canada and Newfoundland, where the term is for twenty-eight with renewal for fourteen years. The Australian code of 1905 covers artistic copyright specifically in part IV of the act, which provides for the general term of forty-two years from "the making of the work" or life and seven years, whichever the longer, but confines it to artistic work "which is made in Australia."

Artistic copyright in Great Britain, on the contrary, has been protected by several concurrent acts beginning with the engraving copyright acts of 1734 and 1767 and including the prints copyright act of 1777, the sculpture copyright act of 1814, the prints and engravings copyright (Ireland) act of 1836 and the fine arts copyright act of 1862 covering paintings, drawings and photographs, previously unprotected, -all forming part of the English law until repealed by the new code. Under these several laws, the copyright term for paintings, drawings and photographs has been the life of the author and seven years, for engravings twenty-eight years from first publication and for sculpture fourteen years from first publishing and renewal for fourteen years. Under the act of 1862 - which did not afford protection outside the United Kingdom, as was affirmed by the Privy Council in 1903, upholding a Canadian decision, in Graves v. Gorrie-copyright in artistic works began with the making of the work wherever made (except that a foreigner must be resident in England apparently at the time of making) and did not depend upon publication; but the international copyright act of 1844 nevertheless denied protection in Great Britain where a work was first published in a country outside of treaty relations. Registration at Stationers' Hall, at a cost of one shilling, has been a prerequisite to protection. The right to copyright

lapsed when the original work was sold by the artist without previous registration or written reservation, a provision applied in 1909 in Hunter v. Clifford.

An original work of sculpture was protected only if Sculpture first published within the British dominions, if by a provisions British subject or resident, provided it bore the proprietor's name and date of first publication; and renewal for a second fourteen years was possible only if the author was then alive and held the copyright. Toy soldiers, artistically modeled, were protected in England as a work of sculpture by Justice Wright in Britain v. Hanks, in 1902. Common law protected until and statute law after publication, i. e. when the public in general is first permitted to view the work.

An engraving was protected in Great Britain and Engraving Ireland, if first published (and probably also made) provisions within the British dominions, provided it bore the proprietor's name and date of publication. Prints, as by lithography or otherwise, were included with engravings; maps, charts and plans were, however, included as books under the general copyright act. Also engravings which are part of a book enjoy the wider protection of the general copyright act. The sale of the plate of an engraving probably does not transfer the copyright, unless intention to do so is clearly evident.

The new British code includes as an "artistic work" The new under the general copyright provisions, "works of British code painting, drawing, sculpture and artistic craftsmanship, and architectural works of art and engravings and photographs." Architectural works are protected only as regards artistic character or design as distinguished from process or methods of construction. Photographs have the exceptional term of fifty years from the making of the original negative, and the owner of such negative at the time of making