though it would make identification more difficult and prevent the copyright certificate being prima facie proof; and change of title is a practice altogether reprehensible. A new copyright of the same book changed only in title, with a new copyright notice of later date, could scarcely be construed as a new edition and in the absence of the original copyright notice the copyright might thus be abandoned or forfeited and the work be dedicated to the public. General titles cannot in any way be protected. General The publishers of the "Bibliographie Universelle, in France, the "Post-Office Directory," in England, and of "Irving's Works," in America, were all defeated in attempts to prevent the use of those titles. "' titles Titles are rather to be considered as trade-marks, Titles as which may be registered in the United States under trade-marks the Trade-Mark acts of 1905-6, and protected by the statutory penalties, or may be protected on general principles of equity. This doctrine was early upheld by the English courts, especially in regard to periodicals, as in the titles of Bell's Life and the London Journal, and again came before the courts in the important case of Weldon v. Dicks, as to the specific title of the novel "Trial and triumph," in which case, in 1878, Vice-Chancellor Malins enjoined quite another book under the same title, though the title was chosen in ignorance of the first book and in entire good faith. So, also, as to the title "Splendid misery," used by Miss Braddon in 1879, Sir James Bacon, in the Chancery suit of Dicks v. Yates, in 1881, was inclined to support the claim of C. H. Hazelwood, who had used the title in 1874, until it was shown that a forgotten novelist named Purr had used it in 1801, so that it had become, in a measure, common property. In the several American "Chatterbox" cases, "Chatterbox" cases Other title decisions Judge Wheeler's early decision restraining the use of this "name or word, or any name or word substantially identical therewith," in or upon any juveniles of the general character of the English book of that name, was followed by Judge Shipman, in 1887, in Estes v. Worthington, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, who also held that the word "Chatterbox" had become "a well-known trade-mark designating a well-known series," published in a distinctive style and enjoined the rival publication, simulating the external style, but of different contents. These decisions previous to 1891, resting on principles of trade-mark and not of copyright, indirectly assured a measure of international copyright. In 1888 the publishers of Life and of "The good things of Life" obtained an injunction from the N. Y. Supreme Court, in Mitchell & Miller v. White & Allen, to restrain the publication of "The spice of life," as seemingly a continuation or counterpart of the authorized collection of extracts from that periodical. In 1904, in Gannet v. Rupert, Judge Coxe in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, on suit of the publishers of Comfort, restrained the use of the title Home Comfort on a rival periodical "not as a case of unfair competition" but as "founded on a technical common law trade-mark"; and characterized the name as "a badge of origin and genuineness. It is as much a part of the proprietor's property as his counting room or printing press. A rival publisher has no more right to appropriate the name of its owner," — despite the defence that Comfort is “a standard English word not fanciful or manufactured." This defence had precedent in the doubt expressed by Lord Cairns in 1867 in the Belgravia case, cited beyond, as to copyright protection of a single word, and in the decision of Judge Curtis in Isaacs v. Daly, in the N. Y. Superior Court in 1874, as to the drama "Charity," that "the use of the word 'Charity' as a designation for any work of art or literature cannot ordinarily be monopolized by any one person"; but under trade-mark law a single word associated by registry or in the public mind with a well-known product, may undoubtedly be protected as against misleading use of the word otherwise. The courts will go even farther in preventing the use of a title by another person with intent to deceive or to utilize the reputation of another work or author, as a fraud upon the public, or as unfair competition, without reference specifically to trade-mark principles. Thus Judge Newburger of the N. Y. Supreme Court, in 1910, in Eliot and Collier v. Jones and the Circle Publishing Company, restrained the issue under the title "Dr. Eliot's five-foot shelf" of books by the defendants of a set of books selected by and issued under the authority of President Eliot of Harvard, under arrangement with the co-plaintiff. The English rulings are to the like effect, that while a title has no copyright protection except as part of a book, the use of a title to attract purchasers on the supposition that they are getting another book previously known by that title is a fraud punishable at common law. Further citations of cases on these points are given in the chapter on infringement. There can be no claim to protection for the title of Projected an unpublished book, as a trade-mark or otherwise, titles just as there can be no copyright in a projected book. This question was elaborately discussed in the leading English case of Maxwell v. Hogg, in 1867, in relation to the magazine Belgravia, when the rule was laid down that no matter what expenditure had been made or advertising done, a title was not protectable previous to its association with a work actually before the public. Judge Shepley, in 1872, pointed out Projected works not copyrightable Immoral works that "there is no such thing as property in a trademark as an abstract name," for a trade-mark simply shows that certain goods "were manufactured by a certain person." Nor can an abandoned title, in the case of a periodical, be held against a person starting a new periodical of that name, providing it does not purport to be a continuation of the old, according to a French case quoted by English authorities. There can be no statutory copyright in a book or other work projected and not yet prepared, despite a very general notion that under the old law a projected book could be protected by registering a title and depositing a title-page of an unwritten or unpublished book. There is nothing in copyright law corresponding to the caveat in patent law. This is not in conflict with the protection of an unpublished work at common law or in equity referred to in the new American code (sec. 2) or the provision in the new law (sec. 11) permitting the registration of "a lecture or similar production or a dramatic or musical composition" or a work of art, before publication, with the deposit of a complete copy or identifying print. There can be no copyright in an immoral book, and Lord Eldon, in Southey v. Sherwood, carried this doctrine so far as to deny the common law right of an author in a non-innocent manuscript, because there could be no right to hold what there was no right to sell. His opinion, resulting in the wide sale of a book which the author desired to suppress, has been severely criticised by later authorities. In the American case of Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co., Judge Morrow, in the U. S. Circuit Court in California, in 1898, held that as a song which the plaintiff sought to protect contained indecent words, it was not entitled to protection under the copyright law. There can be no copyright in blasphemous, seditious, or libelous books; but though this rule was very strictly enforced by English judges a century ago, the later courts hesitate to rule strictly on this point, lest the rule be perverted to sectarianism or despotism. There can be no copyright in books involving fraud, as those which spuriously obtain salable value by being represented to be the work of writers who did not write them, or to contain matter which they do not contain; but this rule does not extend to books under assumed names or innocently pretending to be what they are not, as when Horace Walpole's "Castle of Otranto" was put forward as a translation from the Italian. In addition to the inclusion of "composite works," Periodicals the new American law specifically covers (sec. 5, b) "periodicals, including newspapers," and by other provisions of the law above cited, this covers "all copyrightable component parts." It is further provided (sec. 3) that "the copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this Act." While the American code does not specifically provide as to the separate rights of authors in articles in periodicals or composite works, which must therefore be a matter of contract, or of practice or precedent implying contract, provision for separate copyright is implied in a clause (sec. 12) requiring the deposit of only one copy instead of two in the case of "a contribution to a periodical, for which contribution special registration is requested" - although the specific article is fully protected, as indicated above, by the general copyright. The new Rules and Regulations of the Copyright Definition of Office define periodicals as follows: "(6) This term includes newspapers, magazines, re views, and serial publications appearing oftener than periodicals |