(k) "A man has a right to the copyright of a map of a State or country which he has surveyed or caused to be compiled from existing materials, at his own expense or skill or labor or money. Another man may publish another map of the same State or country, by using the like materials, and the like skill or labor or expense. But, then, he has no right to publish a map taken substantially and designedly from the map of the other person, without any such exercise of skill, labor, or expense. If he copies substantially from the map of another, it is downright piracy." Per Story, J., in Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 768. See also Blount v. Patten, 2 Paine, 397; Smith v. Johnson, 4 Blatchf. 252; Sayre v. Moore, 1 East, 361; Kelly v. Morris,

257 aj statute an infringement of a dramatic performance is considered in an interesting case in New York. (kk)

If there be many volumes, it is enough if the copyright be inserted on the page following the title-page of the first volume. (l) A newspaper, or price-current, (m) or a label of an article offered for sale, (n) cannot have a copyright.

The statute gives the right to a copyright, to the "author, inventor, designer or proprietor." What is necessary to constitute an "author" is a question of some difficulty. It is perhaps impossible to determine this by an exact and adequate definition. If he uses only old materials in an old way, if he compiles his books from other books without the addition of anything new from his own mind, he certainly is not an author. One may make a scrap-book by pasting on the blank leaves of a book interesting articles cut from newspapers; and such a volume might, if printed, have a certain * attractiveness and value; but it aj would not be easy to regard the maker as an author. And yet a mere commonplace book - like Southey's, for example, -consisting wholly of extracts, might be entitled to copyright, on the ground of the care and labor or skill which had made so valuable a collection.

It is certain that the plan or system of a book, and the classification and arrangement of the topics, are embraced among the things covered and protected by the copyright of the book. (o)

Law Rep. 1 Eq. 262; Wilkins v. Aiken, 17 Ves. 422.

(kk) In Daly v. Palmer, 6 Blatchf. 256, it is held, that there is an infringement, if the copyrighted series of events, when represented on the stage, although by new and different characters, using different language, conveys substantially the same impressions to, and causes the same emotions in the mind, in the same order as the original. But this does not extend to mere spectacles or scenic arrangements, without literary character; nor to a mere exhibition, spectacle, or scene; nor to any composition of an immoral or indecent character.

(l) Dwight v. Appletons, 1 N. Y. Legal Observer, 196.

(m) Clayton v. Stone, 2 Paine, 882.

(n) Coffeen v. Brunton, 4 McLean, 517; Scoville v. Tolland, 6 West. L. J. 84.

(o) Thus, in Greene v. Bishop, 1 Clif. 199, Clifford, J., says: "The author of a book who takes existing materials from sources common to all writers, and arranges and combines them in a new form, is protected in the exclusive enjoyment of what he has thus collected and produced; for the reason that he has exercised selection, arrangement, and combination, and thereby has produced something that is new and valuable." So, in Emerson v. Davies, 8 Story, 768, Story, J., says: "The question is not whether the materials which are used are entirely new, and have never been used before; or even that they have never before been used for the same purpose. The true question is whether the same plan, arrangement, and combination of materials have been used before for the same purpose, or for any other purpose. If they have not, then the plaintiff is entitled to a copyright, although he may have gathered hints for his plan and arrangement from existing and known sources. He may have borrowed much of his material from others; but if they are combined in a different manner from what was in use before, and, a fortiorit if his plan and arrangement are real improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a ak

It may be possible for an author who uses nothing but ak what may be found in print elsewhere, to found * a copyright upon the use he makes of his materials; but it is difficult to imagine how he can do this if the volume contains no product of his own thought, and nothing which has not been thought and said before. We shall recur to this topic when considering what is an infringement of the right secured by a copyright.

Letters may be the subject of copyright; but the right of publication belongs to the writer and his representatives, and not to the receiver, who has at most only a special property in them. (p) copyright in the book embodying such improvements. It is true he does not thereby acquire the right to appropriate to himself the materials which were common to all persons before, so as to exclude those persons from a future use of such materials; but, then, they have no right to use such materials with his improvements superadded, whether they consist in plan, arrangement, or illustrations, or combinations, for these are strictly his own." So, in Atwill v. Ferritt, 1 Blatchf. 39, Betts, J., says: "To constitute one an author, he must, by his own intellectual labor applied to the material of his composition, produce an arrangement or compilation new in itself."

Thus, copyrights have been supported for a grammar, Gray v. Russell, 1 Story, 11; Greene v. Bishop, supra; an arithmetic, Emerson v. Davies, supra; a roadbook, giving an enumeration of highways and the distances from place to place, Cary v. Longman, 1 East, 867; a topographical dictionary, Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Bear. 6; a court calendar, Longman v. Winchester, 16 Ves. 269; a directory, Kelly v. Morris, Law Rep. 1 Eq. 697; Morris v. Ashbee, Law Rep. 7 Eq. 84; Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. 270; a series of mathematical tables, Bayley v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & My. 78; a chronology, Trusler v. Murray, 1 East, 862 n; a collection of statistics, Scott v. Stanford, Law Rep. 8 Eq. 718; and even a catalogue, unless it be a mere list of dry names, Holten v. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 608, 82 L. J. Ch. 771. See also Jarrald v. Houlston, 8 K. & J. 708: Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 216; Barfleld v. Nicholson, 2 Sim. & St. 1; Carnan v. Bowles, 2 Bro. Ch. 80; Webb v. Powers, 2 Wood. & M. 497; Story v. Holcombe. 4 McLean, 806.