Copyright: Its History and Its Law Part 12

A copyright may be terminated by voluntary abandonment or purposed dedication as well as by expiration, forfeiture or _laches_. Thus in 1854 Congress purchased for $10,000 the copyright of Sumner's new method of ascertaining a s.h.i.+p's position, dedicated the method to general public use, and extinguished the copyright. The Copyright Office has no authority to recognize annulments, but it has noted request for annulment when received on the registry. In 1910 the Oxford University Press, American Branch, formally notified the Treasury Department that they abandoned the copyright on Oxford Cyclopaedic Concordance copyrighted by them in 1903, and collectors of customs were accordingly authorized by circular letter of January 25, 1910, to permit importation "of any copies of the said work with the notice of the copyright obliterated, or a notice of the abandonment of the copyright plainly printed upon the same page with the notice of copyright and adjacent thereto." This last was a curious "boomerang" effect of the manufacturing clause as extended to binding in the act of 1909.

{Sidenote: In England}

In England the term of book copyright has been the life of the author and seven years after his death, or forty-two years from first publication, whichever the longer. The copyright in other articles has varied according to specific laws. The Copyright Commission of 1876 proposed, for all copyright articles as well as books, a term of life and thirty years after the author's death, according to the German precedent, or in case of anonymous and posthumous books and encyclopaedias, thirty years from the date of deposit in the British Museum, an anonymous author to have the right during the thirty years to obtain the full term by publis.h.i.+ng an edition with his name. The English law contained a specific provision that in the case of articles in periodicals (but not in an encyclopaedia) the right to publish in separate form should revert to an author after twenty-eight years; the Commission proposed a term of three years, during which time also the author as well as the general owner may bring suit against piracy. The English committee appointed to make recommendations in respect to the adoption of the Berlin provisions of 1908 through domestic legislation, however, reported strongly in favor of a general term of life and fifty years; and this term has been adopted in the new code.

{Sidenote: The new British code}

This general term of "the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death" holds "unless previously determined by first publication elsewhere." In joint authors.h.i.+p, copyright shall subsist during the life of the author who first dies and fifty years after or during the life of the author who dies last, whichever the longer. In posthumous works, copyright subsists for fifty years from first publication or performance, whichever the earlier. Anonymous and pseudonymous, and corporate works are not named in the act, and the term is presumably fifty years, unless in the former cases ident.i.ty is disclosed. For photographs and mechanical music reproductions as such, the term is fifty years from the making of the original negative or the original plate. Existing copyrights are extended through the new period; but for the extended term the rights revert to the author, though an a.s.signee may require continuance of the a.s.signment or continue to publish on royalties, as determined by agreement or arbitration.

a.s.signments, except for parts of collective works, terminate in twenty-five years, when rights revert to the heirs.

{Sidenote: Perpetual copyright}

The Crown has held an exclusive and perpetual right to license the printing of the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, ordnance surveys, and possibly the Acts of Parliament; and specified universities and colleges were a.s.sured perpetual copyright in works given or bequeathed to them unless given for a limited term, but the right lapsed into the usual copyright term unless the work were printed on their own presses and for their own benefit. Under the new code, "without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown," any work prepared or published for His Majesty or any Government department has copyright for fifty years from first publication--the effect of which provision on Crown perpetual copyrights is not clearly evident. A saving clause protects the universities "in any right they already possess," inferentially limiting their future copyrights to the statutory term. After the death of the author of a literary, dramatic or musical work, on complaint of the withholding of the work from publication or performance, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may require the owner to grant a license to reproduce or perform the work in public under conditions determined by the Committee. After twenty-five years, or in the case of existing copyrights thirty years from the author's death, the work may be reproduced by any person on prescribed notice in writing of his intention and payment of ten per cent on the published price in accordance with regulations by the Board of Trade.

{Sidenote: Other countries}

{Sidenote: International standard term}

Perpetual copyright is granted by the laws of other countries, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela, while in Montenegro, Egypt, Liberia, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay and Uruguay, which give copyright protection without specific legislation under a crude civil or common law enforced by the courts, the term is indefinite. A copyright term extending eighty years beyond the death of the author is granted by Spain, Cuba, Colombia and Panama. The French precedent of fifty years after the author's death was followed by Belgium, Russia and the Scandinavian countries, Hungary, Portugal and some others, and was adopted by the Berlin convention as the international standard term; the German precedent of thirty years beyond death was followed by Austria, Switzerland and j.a.pan, while the British precedent of seven years beyond death or forty-two years from publication, whichever the longer, was followed in many of the English colonies and in Siam. Italy has a curious term of life or at least forty years after publication, with a second period of forty years during which, though the exclusive rights lapse, the author enjoys a royalty of five per cent on publication price. Haiti has the curious term of the life of the author and twenty additional years for widow or children, or ten years for other heirs. In Holland fifty years or life, in Brazil fifty years from the preceding January 1st, and in Greece fifteen years are specified.

{Sidenote: Special categories}

In many countries there are special terms for special categories of works, as for anonymous, pseudonymous, and corporate works, translations, photographs and telegraphic dispatches--the latter for a stated number of hours.

IX

FORMALITIES OF COPYRIGHT: PUBLICATION, NOTICE, REGISTRATION AND DEPOSIT

{Sidenote: General principles}

Copyright may inhere as a natural right, as under English common law before the statute of Anne, without record or formalities, but also without statutory protection; or formalities may be required only as a prerequisite to protection by actions at law; or formalities may be required to validate and secure the copyright. English formalities belong to the second cla.s.s. American formalities are of the third cla.s.s, and without them copyright does not exist.

{Sidenote: Previous American requirements}

The American copyright law of 1909 prescribes exactly the method of securing copyright, and makes clear the cases in which non-compliance invalidates copyright. Previous to 1909 copyright was secured by complying exactly with the statutory requirements of (1) the delivery to the Librarian of Congress on or before the day of publication, in this or any foreign country, of a printed (including typewritten) copy of t.i.tle or description of the work, (2) the insertion in every copy published of the prescribed copyright notice, and (3) the deposit not later (under the law of 1891) than such day of publication (earlier law allowing ten days after publication) of two copies of the best edition of a book or other article, or a photograph of a work of art (as to date of deposit of which last the law was not explicit); and any failure to comply literally and exactly with these conditions forfeited the copyright.

{Sidenote: Present American basis}

The American code of 1909 subst.i.tutes an entirely different basis for securing copyright. Copyright now depends upon (1) publication with the notice of copyright, and (2) deposit of copies, these copies in the case of books and certain other works to be manufactured within the United States. The accidental omission of the copyright notice from "a particular copy or copies" does not invalidate the copyright though it may relieve an innocent trespa.s.ser from penalty as an infringer; but failure to deposit within a specified time, or false report as to manufacture, makes the copyright not valid.

{Sidenote: Provisions of 1909}

The general provisions as to formalities are as follows (sec. 9): "That any person ent.i.tled thereto by this Act may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this Act; and such notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, except in the case of books seeking _ad interim_ protection under section twenty-one of this Act"; and (sec. 10): "That such person may obtain registration of his claim to copyright by complying with the provisions of this Act, including the deposit of copies, and upon such compliance the Register of Copyrights shall issue to him the certificate provided for in section fifty-five of this Act."

{Sidenote: Publication}

The definition in the act (sec. 62) of "the date of publication" as "the earliest date when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority" defines publication, and the clause (sec. 9) requiring the copyright notice to be affixed to each copy "published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor" confirms the principle that the copyright proprietor cannot be held responsible, nor can copyright be voided because of copies "published," offered, sold or distributed without his authority. The Copyright Office Rules and Regulations (23) add to the definition of publication the parenthetical explanation: "(_i. e._, so that all persons who desire copies may obtain them without restriction or condition other than that imposed by the copyright law)." It is questionable, however, whether this explanation does not go beyond the letter of the law. In Stern _v._ Remick, in 1910, the U. S. Circuit Court protected the copyright of a song, though only one copy had been offered for sale and sold. Advance distribution to the trade or of review copies would not const.i.tute publication. While the law does not prescribe first publication in this country, it is at least doubtful whether a book published in another country prior to publication here, unless protected by international copyright relations, has not fallen into the public domain and thus forfeited copyright protection here.

{Sidenote: Copyright notice}

The first step in securing copyright, being publication "with the notice of copyright" "affixed to each copy published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor," the method and form of this notice is of first importance. The act of 1909 provides (sec. 18): "That the notice of copyright required by section nine of this Act shall consist either of the word 'Copyright' or the abbreviation 'Copr.,' accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor, and if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work, the notice shall include also the year in which the copyright was secured by publication. In the case, however, of copies of works specified in subsections (f) to (k), inclusive, of section five of this Act, the notice may consist of the letter C inclosed within a circle, thus: , accompanied by the initials, monogram, mark, or symbol of the copyright proprietor: _Provided_, That on some accessible portion of such copies or of the margin, back, permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted, his name shall appear. But in the case of works in which copyright is subsisting when this Act shall go into effect, the notice of copyright may be either in one of the forms prescribed herein or in one of those prescribed by the Act of June eighteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four."

{Sidenote: Previous statutory form}

Under the law of 1874, the prescribed notice was in the old form (Rev.

Stat. 4962), "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year ----, by A. B., in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Was.h.i.+ngton," with the optional alternative of the form "Copyright, 18--, by A. B." Under the new code the latter form is preserved, with the alternative of the provision "Copr.," with date and name, but the longer form may be used on books copyrighted under the earlier acts, even if reprinted after the pa.s.sage of the later act. Except for books previously copyrighted, the longer form is not now the legal notice, and its use would be dangerous, as it does not contain the specific word copyright, or its abbreviation, now made an obligatory part of the notice. While in Osgood v. Aloe in 1897, the omission of the name from the notice, though on the t.i.tle-page, and in Record & Guide Co. _v._ Bromley in 1910, the omission of the date, though indicated by the date of the periodical in the line below, were held to void the copyright, such addition as the words "published by" has been held, as in Hills v. Hoover in 1905, a mere superfluity not voiding copyright.

{Sidenote: Exact phraseology required}

The exact phraseology and order of words must be followed, and it has been held that any inaccuracy in the name of the copyright proprietor, as in the English case of Low _v._ Routledge, by Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, in 1864, or in the date of the entry, as in the American case of Baker _v._ Taylor in 1848, when 1847 was put for 1846, makes the copyright invalid.

{Sidenote: Name}

The name in the copyright notice (C. O. Rule 24) must be the real name of a living person or of a firm or corporate body or the trade name in actual use, and may not be a pseudonym or pen-name or other make-believe. A copyright notice should not be in the name of one person for the benefit of another; the beneficiary's name should be the one printed. A publisher may take out a copyright for an author, however, in which case the publisher's name and not the author's name will be given, unless the publisher makes application as the agent of the author-claimant. The name in the copyright notice must correspond fully with the real name as given in the application, but an objection that N.

Sarony instead of Napoleon Sarony was not the real name, was quashed in 1884, in Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. _v._ Sarony, by the U. S. Supreme Court.

{Sidenote: Date}

The date of copyright notice, being that of publication, should correspond with the imprint date on the original edition; but on later printings or editions, where the date of imprint is changed, the copyright notice would of course show the earlier date of the original edition. Thus a book first published in 1911 could not bear copyright notice of 1910 date, which would mean that copyright was registered before instead of after publication, which is not possible under the new law; nor should an edition of 1910 bear copyright notice of 1911, as the application and notice should state the actual year of publication; and the date of 1911 in imprint where the copyright notice is of 1910, would be correct only on a later edition, as above stated. A book may be printed, however, in a certain year and not published till a later year, in which case the copyright notice would be of later date than the imprint date; thus the Copyright Office registered in 1910, under the new law, a copyright on a work with the imprint of 1904, on a.s.surance that though printed in 1904, the work was not actually published until 1910. Under the old law, where, as stated above, a copyright notice later than the actual copyright was disallowed as claiming protection beyond the copyright term, a later decision, in 1888, in Callaghan _v._ Myers, held, that where a copyright notice gave the year 1866, while the true date was 1867, there was no harm done to the public, because a year of the copyright, which really ended in 1895 instead of 1894, was given to the public, whereas in the previous case an additional year was claimed. Doubt was thrown upon this decision by Judge Wallace in Schumacher _v._ Wogram, also in 1888. In Snow _v._ Mast in 1895, the subst.i.tution for 1894 of the abbreviated '94, and in Stern _v._ Remick in 1910, the use of words or Roman numerals for Arabic, were upheld.

{Sidenote: Accidental omission}

An important safeguard, new in copyright law, is enacted in the provision (sec. 20): "That where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this Act with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, but shall prevent the recovery of damages against an innocent infringer who has been misled by the omission of the notice; and in a suit for infringement no permanent injunction shall be had unless the copyright proprietor shall reimburse to the innocent infringer his reasonable outlay innocently incurred if the court, in its discretion, shall so direct."

{Sidenote: Place of notice}

It is further provided (sec. 19): "That the notice of copyright shall be applied, in the case of a book or other printed publication, upon its t.i.tle-page or the page immediately following, or if a periodical either upon the t.i.tle-page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the t.i.tle heading, or if a musical work either upon its t.i.tle-page or the first page of music: _Provided_, That one notice of copyright in each volume or in each number of a newspaper or periodical published shall suffice."

Although the code of 1909 relieves the copyright proprietor from permanent forfeiture in the case of an accidental omission of the copyright notice from certain copies (sec. 20), the statute is otherwise specific, and there seems to be no means of relief where the copyright notice is, however innocently, in the wrong place or in the wrong form.

Thus in 1909, in Freeman _v._ Trade Register, the U. S. Circuit Court held that where the copyright notice of a periodical appeared on the editorial page, which was not the first page of text, the copyright was voided. The copyright notice can probably, however, be placed safely and preferably on the first page, being the t.i.tle-page, of a specially copyrighted part of a book, as an introduction preceding a non-copyright work or an index or appended notes, or upon specific ill.u.s.trations; and this is perhaps preferable in copyrighting editions with such features of works otherwise in the public domain. In the case of articles in a periodical or parts of a composite work separately copyrighted or registered, the copyright notice should appear on the same page as the t.i.tle heading.

{Sidenote: One notice sufficient}

The proviso (sec. 19) that one notice of copyright in each volume or in each number of a periodical shall suffice is complementary to the provision (sec. 3) by which a copyright protects all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, and gives to the proprietor of a composite work or periodical all the rights he would have if each part were individually copyrighted. It means that there need be no repet.i.tion of the general copyright notice on different portions of a book or periodical. In West Pub. Co. _v._ Thompson Co., under the old law, Judge Ward, in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1910, overruled the defense that the copyright was not valid because the copyright notice did not repeat the several copyright notices originally protecting the several parts of the compilation; and this view, that the general copyright notice protects all copyrighted and copyrightable parts, is now specifically embodied in the statute.

{Sidenote: Separate volumes}

{Sidenote: Different dates}

The proviso (sec. 61) "that only one registration at one fee shall be required in the case of several volumes of the same book deposited at the same time" indicates that one copyright entry suffices for several volumes simultaneously published, but each separate volume should contain the notice. Volumes published separately, not only in successive years but at successive dates within the year, should be separately registered, and if published separately in successive years, must each bear its copyright notice for the year of publication--this being the direct sequence from the provision that copyright runs from the specific date of publication and not from the year or date of registration. The Copyright Office will, however, under the law, register for one fee volumes or parts deposited at the same time, though published at various times. In the case of a book issued in successive parts, of which only the first part includes a t.i.tle-page or t.i.tle headings, the law is not specific; but it seems probable that, in default of copyright notice and registration for each part, the parts not bearing copyright notice might be legally reprinted, and that the safer course is to place the copyright notice on the first page of each part and register each part separately, in which case the completed work should have the date or dates of the year or years within which the several parts were published. There seem to be no objections, within the law or from court decisions, to coupling two dates in the same notice, in such cases as "Copyright, 1910, 1911, by A. B.," though there is no specific decision on this point. Under the previous law a book published in more than one volume or part, the portions not complete in themselves, was probably protected by copyright entry of the first part, all parts being of course ultimately deposited; but the change in the new code basing copyright on publication with notice, seems to change this rule of practice. In the case of Dwight _v._ Appleton, in 1840, it was held that as the statute did not expressly prescribe that the copyright notice should appear in successive volumes after the first, this was not necessary; but the application of this doubtful decision under the new code would be more than questionable.

{Sidenote: Notice part of initial step}

It may be emphasized that publication with notice is the first step in copyright under the new code, and that registration on deposit is the secondary and completing act, and therefore that no registry in the Copyright Office is necessary to authorize the printing of the copyright notice, as was formerly the case.