exhibit at the Royal Academy in 1894. The painting was sent to Werckmeister at Berlin, where it was received on March 8, 1894, and was returned to Sadler in London on March 22, 1894. On April 2, 1904, the artist Sadler executed and delivered the following instrument:

(Signed)

"I hereby transfer the copyright in my picture 'Chorus' to the Photographische Gesellschaft, Berlin (The Berlin Photographic Company), for the sum of £200. London, April 2, 1894. W. DENDY SADLER." Werckmeister was a citizen of the German Empire, doing business in Berlin, Germany, under the trade name of “Photographische Gesellschaft," and did business in New York city under the name of the "Berlin Photographic Company."

The Photographische Gesellschaft of Berlin, by letter dated March 31, 1894, received on April 16, 1894, deposited the title and description of the painting and a photograph of the same in the office of the Librarian of Congress, the intention being to obtain a copyright under the act of Congress. . S. Comp. Stat., v. 3. p. 3407. After the painting was returned to London it was exhibited by Sadler at the exhibition of the Royal Acad-. emy at London, and was there on exhibition for about three months; the exhibition opening the first Monday of May and closing the first Monday of August, 1894. The exhibition was open to the public on week days from 8 A. M. to 7 P. M. upon the payment of the admission fee of one shilling, and during the last week was open evenings, the entrance charge being sixpence. There was a private view for the press on May 2, and on May 3 up to one o'clock, and the remainder of the day was for the Royal private view. There was also a general private view on May 4. The members and the associate members of the Royal Academy and the artists exhibiting at the exhibition and their families were entitled at all times to free admission, and they as well as the public visited the exhibition in large numbers.

During the time that the painting was shown at the exhibition it was not inscribed as a copyright, nor were any words

thereon indicating a copyright, nor on the substance on which it was mounted, nor on the frame, as required by the copyright act (3 U. S. Comp. Stat., p. 3411), if the original painting is within the requirements of the law in this respect.

The painting while on exhibition was for sale at the Royal Academy, but with the copyright reserved, which reservation was entered in the gallery sale book. The by-laws of the Royal Academy provided" that no permission to copy works on exhibition shall on any account be granted." The reasons for the bylaw, as it appears upon minutes of the Academy, are as follows:

"That so much property in copyright being entrusted to the guardianship of the Royal Academy, the council feel themselves compelled to disallow, in future, all copying within their walls from pictures sent for exhibition."

The photogravures of the painting were placed on sale in June, 1894, or in the autumn of 1894; those photogravures were inscribed with the notice of copyright.

Mr. Sadler, the artist, afterwards, in October, 1899, sold the painting to a Mr. Cotterel, residing in London, England, since which time, so far as has been shown, it has been hanging in the dining room of the house of that gentleman.

On June 20, 1902, Werckmeister commenced an action, by the service of a summons, against the American Tobacco Company, plaintiff in error, and on the same day a writ of replevin was issued out of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, directed to the marshal of the same district, requiring him to replevin the chattels described in an annexed affidavit. Under the writ the marshal seized upon the premises of the American Tobacco Company 203 pictures. On July 23, 1902, Werckmeister caused another writ of replevin to issue out of the same court, directed to the marshal of the Western District of New York, under which writ the marshal seized 993 pictures.

An amendment to the complaint set forth the seizure of the pictures. The copies seized were adjudged to be forfeited to the plaintiff Werckmeister and to be of the value of $1,010.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

207 U.S.

The judgment rendered in the Circuit Court was taken upon error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and there affirmed. 146 Fed. Rep. 373. The present writ of error is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Mr. William A. Jenner for plaintiff in error:

Plaintiff below (defendant in error) had no right to maintain the action because of omission to give the notice of copyright prescribed by § 4962 on the original painting exhibited at the Royal Academy.

The statutory notice of copyright is most effectively given in the case of a painting when it is inscribed upon "some visible portion thereof, or of the substance on which the same shall be mounted." Every one who sees the painting sees that notice, or can see it, if he looks.

Inscription upon a copy and not upon the original is futile, if one sees only the original and does not see the copy. To be completely effective the notice should be inscribed upon copies as well as upon the original.

But in the case of a painting, there may be no copies, replicas or reproductions, and the author or proprietor may wish only to prevent copying and to preserve the painting unique. In that case, unless the statutory notice is inscribed upon the painting or its mount, no notice at all would be given. But the statute does not distinguish between those cases where the copyrightable thing, i. e. the painting, is kept unique and those cases where copies or reproductions are made. In both cases there must be compliance with the same requirements.

In the case at bar the thing copyrighted was the painting. Plaintiff's photogravure was not copyrighted at all and was protected only by virtue of the copyright of the painting.

Section 4962 should be construed so as to promote its apparent object, that is to require the notice to be inscribed upon the original painting. Its plain import is that the copies of every edition of the book published is to have a notice inserted in them; if a painting, the notice is to be inscribed upon

207 U.S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

a visible portion of it or of its mount, without regard to publication.

Where the language is plain and unambiguous a refusal to recognize its natural, obvious meaning would be justly regarded as indicating a purpose to change the law by judicial action based upon some supposed policy of Congress. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 36; Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107, 111; Scott v. Reid, 10 Pet. 524, 527; St. Paul &c. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, 137 U. S. 528.

The primary rule is that a statute is to receive the meaning which the ordinary reading of its language warrants. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch. 386; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 395; United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 95.

The exhibition at the Royal Academy was a publication of the painting. Published means made public.

The only way in which a painting or statue, a model or design can be published is by exhibition thereof to the public. If the public were admitted without restriction of number, the exhibition was in every sense a public exhibition.

Section 4965 cannot be enforced by an action in replevin. The writs of replevin and proceedings thereunder were unwarranted in law and illegal. Replevin under the New York Code of Civil Procedure is not adapted, and the Circuit Court is without authority to adapt or mold it, to proceedings for enforcing the forfeiture of infringing sheets accruing under Rev. Stat., § 4965.

'Plaintiff's proceedings, therefore, were without authority of law, and the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to try the action or render a judgment. Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 126; Rinehart v. Smith, 121 Fed. Rep. 148; Gustin v. Record Pub. Co., 127 Fed. Rep. 603; Hills v. Hoover, 142 Fed. Rep. 904; Morrison v. Pettibone, 87 Fed. Rep. 330; Walker v. Globe Newspaper Co., 130 Fed. Rep. 593.

Mr. Antonio Knauth for defendant in error:

The copyright statute does not require a notice on the original VOL. COVII-19

painting, but only on every copy of every edition issued. Werckmeister v. Pierce & Bushnell Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 455, and Werckmeister v. Amer. Lithographic Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 827.

For the purposes of the present case it is immaterial whether or not the original picture is included in the words "in the several copies of every edition published," because clearly the statute cannot be construed to require a notice on the unpublished painting. The object of the statute requiring notice is to give notice to the public. The statutes refer only to the published edition, which is an edition offered to the public for sale or circulation. Falk v. Gast Lith. & Eng. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 890, 894 (Shipman, J.); Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53; Snow v. Mast, 65 Fed. Rep. 995; Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Vol. 7 (2d ed.), 555; Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U. S. 123, 150; Mifflin v. White, 190 U. S. 260.

The action was properly brought to secure condemnation and forfeiture of the goods, adapting the pleadings as far as might be to an action of replevin. Bolles v. Outing Co., 175 U. S. 266; Hageman v. Springer, 110 Fed. Rep. 374; Springer Lith. Co. v. Falk, 59 Fed. Rep. 707; Morrison v. Pettibone, 87 Fed. Rep. 330; Childs v. N. Y. Times Co., 110 Fed. Rep. 527.

MR. JUSTICE DAY, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves important questions under the copyright laws of the United States, upon which there has been diversity of view in the Federal courts.

Before taking up the errors assigned it may aid in the elucidation of the questions involved to briefly consider the nature of the property in copyright which it is the object of the statutes of the United States to secure and protect. A copyright, as the term imports, involves the right of publication and reproduction of works of art or literature. A copyright, as defined by Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawles' edition, volume 1, p. 436, is: "The exclusive privilege, secured according to certain legal