Seldom is a whole work reprinted without change. But a part of it may be reprinted word for word; or the whole, or an important part may be reprinted under a colorable disguise. Either will be, generally, an infringement.

If a reviewer quotes from the book under review, is this an infringement? Certainly not, if it be done honestly, and only to illustrate the various opinions concerning the book or its topics. But it must be obvious, that even such a disguise as this might be adopted to cover up a piracy. (c)

* It is certain that a copyright may be infringed by aq copying a part of the book, if it be of sufficient extent and importance. But if a book infringe the copyright of another book only in one distinctly severable part, it is a rule that the remedy will not extend beyond the injury. (d) olas, L. R. 5 Ch. Ap. 255, 38 L. J. Ch, 529. "Plagiarism," he says, "does not necessarily amount to a legal invasion of copyright. A man publishing a work gives it to the world, and, so far as it adds to the world's knowledge, adds to the material which any other author has a right to use, and may even be bound not to neglect. The question then is between a legitimate and a piratical use of an author's work. There is no monopoly in the main theory of the plaintiff, or in the theories or speculations by which he has supported it, nor even in the published results of his own observations. But the plaintiff has a right to say that no one is to be permitted, whether with or without acknowledgment, to take a material and substantial portion of his work, of his argument, his illustrations, his authorities, lor the purpose of making or improving a rival work." See also Stowe v. Thomas, 2 Am. Law Beg. 229.

(c) Thus, in Campbell v. Scott, 11 Sim. 31, the defendant had published a work called "The Book of the Poets;" consisting of extracts from the works of different authors, those of the plaintiff among others; the whole being preceded by a general disquisition on the nature of the poetry of the nineteenth century, but without any particular observations being appended to the poems which followed. It was held, that this could not be protected as a book of criticism. See also Bell v. Whitehead, 8 L. J. Ch. 141; Whittingham v. Wooler, 2 Swanst. 428; Bohn v. Bogue, 10 Jur. 420; Saunders v. Smith, 3 My. & Cr. 711; Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422; Mawman v, Tegg, 2 Russ. 385; Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story, 106.

(d) Story v. Hokombe, 4 McLean, 315; Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 795; Webb v. Powers, 2 Wood. & M. 521; Greene v. Bishop, 1 Clif. 201; Lawrence v. Dana, C. C. U. S. Mass. Dist. 1869; Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 335; Carnan v. Bowles, 2 Bro. Ch. R. 85; Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 K. & J. 721. In Tonson v. Walker, cited 4 Burr. 2325, Lord Hardwicke granted an injunction against the publication of an edition of Milton with Dr. Newton's notes, the infringement being of the notes only. But this is certainly not the modern pracother thing for which he secured a copyright Perris v. Hexamer, 99 U. S. 674. Chatterton v. Cave, L. R. 10 C. P 572; 2 C. P. D. 42, decided that in order to recover penalties under the Dramatic Copyright Act, for pirating a dramatic production, the plaintiff must show that a material and substantial part has been pirated. That an infringement of the registered copyright of the music of an opera may be committed where the opera itself has not been published, and so no copy of it could be deposited, and where the music has been made the subject of two piano "arrangements," one without the voice, another for the voice, and, those arrangements having been published, the infringer has used them for his own production, see Fairlie v. Boosey, 4 App. Cas. 711. The reproduction in a book, in a reduced form, of nine cartoons from "Ames," sometimes with and sometimes without the descriptive writing, without the consent of its proprietors, was held to be an appropriation or a substantial part of their sheets of letterpress, and an infringement of their copyright. Bradbury v. Button, L. R. 8 Ex. 1.

Neither the intention of the party charged with infringement, (e) nor his ignorance that he was infringing, (f) can be taken into consideration, except so far as they bear upon the only fact that is inquired into, - Is there actual infringement? It has been said that the word "book " in the statute does not include a translation. It may be sound doctrine that a copyright of a book is not infringed by the publication of a translation of it into another language. But it cannot be law, that, if one in this country makes a translation into English of a foreign work, he cannot have a valid copyright of his translation. Every day's ar practice is otherwise. (g) * In England it has been intimated, that if an English book be translated into German, and from German be retranslated into English, this retranslation would be an infringement of the original copyright. (h)

The question whether a compilation from a copyright book is an infringement, often depends upon the farther question, What is the limit to the right which an author has to profit by the labors of an earlier author? Whoever publishes a book does so in the hope that he may increase human knowledge, or rectify tice, unless so large a portion of the defendant's work consists of pirated matter that an injunction against this renders the remainder of the work entirely useless. See Mawman v. Tegg, supra; Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Bear. 6. So where the parts which have been copied are so interwoven with original matter that they cannot be separated without destroying the work, the publication of the whole work will be restrained. See cases just cited.

(e) Scott v. Stanford, L. R. 3 Eq. 723; Roworth v. Wilkes, 1 Camp. 94; Campbell v. Scott, 11 Sim. 31; Hodges v. Welch, 2 Ir. Eq. 266; Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422; Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 768; Story v. Holcombe, 4 McLean, 306; Nichols v. Ruggles, 3 Day, 158. But although the absence of fraudulent intent will not excuse a palpable violation of another's copyright, still, in doubtful cases, or where the amount taken is small, it often has an important bearing upon the question whether a fair use has been made of the materials taken, and whether an injunction should be granted or the party left to his remedy at law. Cary v. Kearsley, 4 Esp. 170; Spiers v. Brown, 6 W. R. 533; Cary v. Faden, 5 Ves. 83; Beade v. Lacy, 1 Johns. & H. 526; Webb v. Powers, 2 Wood. & M. 497; Lawrence v. Dana, C. C. U. S. Mass. Disk 1869.