(q) Stockdale v. Onwhyn, 6 B. & C. 178; 7 D. & R. 625; 2 C. & P. 168. And see Fores v. Johnes, 4 Esp. 97; Hime v. Dale, 2 Camp. 28; 8outhey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 486.
(r) Lawrence v. Smith, 1 Jac. 471; Murray v. Benbow, 1 Jac. 474; Burnett v. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. 441; Cowan v. Milbourn, Law Rep. 2 Exch. 230.
(s) Priestley's case, cited 2 Meriv. 487.
(ss) As where a devotional work professed to be a translation from the German of Sturm, a celebrated writer on religions subjects, and it appeared that no such work was ever written by Sturm, it was held that the fraud invalidated the copyright. Wright v. Tallis, 1 C. B. 893, 9 Jur. 946. See also Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 215; Seeley v. Fisher, 11 Sim. 581.
(t) Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 598. In this case the Supreme Court of the United 8tates say: "The court are unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this court; and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right." But no doubt was expressed as to the plaintiff's right to the marginal notes and abstracts of arguments prepared by him, and the case was remanded for the purpose of trying the question whether he had com plied with the requisitions of the statute. See Judge Story's remarks on this case in Gray v. Russell, 1 Story, 11. In Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B. 459, the plaintiffs were the proprietors of the "Jurist," in which were published the decisions of the courts specially reported for them, and accompanied by the usual marginal notes and abstracts of the arguments. The defendant, having copied these notes and abstracts into his publication, the "Monthly Digest," was held to have invaded the plaintiff's copyright. See also Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 165, affirmed in 18 How. 165.
(u) So held in Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves. 709; Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51; Saunders v. Smith, 3 My. & Cr. 711; and see Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B. 459.
am in the office of the Librarian of Congress, as otherwise it will have no force or effect against a subsequent purchaser am for a valuable consideration without notice. (v) * It has been held that an assignment of a copyright for a limited locality operates at law as a mere license; although, if made for a valuable consideration, it will be carried into effect in equity; (vv) and that the author's right to his unpublished manuscript may be assigned so as to give the assignee the exclusive right of taking out a copyright; and, as this assignment is not regulated by statute, it may be by parol. (vw) And in a recent case it was held, that where one agreed to furnish gratuitously notes and comments for two new editions of a copyrighted book, the right to copyright these editions with these notes and comments vested at once in the owners of the original work. (vx)
Where an artist was employed by the government on an exploring expedition, with an understanding that all his drawings made in this capacity were to be the property of the government, it was held that he could have no copyright in them. (vy) But it was held that one employed to write a play to be performed at a particular theatre might have a copyright; and the proprietor of the theatre had no other right than that of having the play performed at his theatre. (vz)
Much question has arisen as to whether a general assignment of a copyright carries with it the right to the extension of an fourteen years provided by section 88. (w) The * conclu(v) Act 1870, § 89. "Copyrights shall be assignable at law, by any instrument of writing, and such assignment shall be recorded in the office of the Librarian of Congress within sixty days after its execution; in default of which, it shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice."
(vv) Keene v. Wheatley, 9 Am. Law Rep. 46 ; Roberts v. Myers, 13 Law Rep. 401. Under the English statute there can be no partial assignment. Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 493.
(vw) Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 528.
(vx) In his opinion, Clifford, J., said: " The complainant gave the contributions to the proprietor for those two editions of the work; and the title to the same vested in the proprietor, as the work was done, to the extent of the gift, and subject to the trust in favor of the donor, as necessarily implied in the terms of the arrangement. Delivery was made as the work was done; and the proprietor of the book needed no other muniment of title than what was acquired when the agreement was executed. Vested as the property of the contributions was in Mrs. W. (the proprietor of the work), she could not acquire anything by an assignment from the contributor, as he had neither the immediate title to the contributions nor any inchoate right of copyright in those editions."Lawrence v. Dana, C. C. U. S. Mass. Dist. 1869. See also Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 362; Atwill v. Ferritt, 2 Blatchf. 46; Hatton v. Kean, 7 C. B. (n. s.) 267.
(vy) Heine v. Appletons, 4 Blatchf. 125; Siebert's case, 7 Op. Att. Gen. 656.
(vz) Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; Boucicault v. Fox, 5 Blatchf. 87 ; Crowe v. Aikin, 4 Am. Law Rev. 450; Shepherd v. Conquest, 17 C. B. 427.
(w) Act 1870, §88: "The author, inventor, or designer, if he be still living, and a citizen of the United States, or
257 ao sion would seem to be, that the intent of this extension regarded the author and his family, rather than his assignees; and that the taking out this second term is obtaining a new title or interest, rather than confirming or completing a former one; (x) but that it is in the power of the author to transfer this right. There can be no presumption that he intends this. But if the instrument shows clearly that this was the intention of the parties, although it be not expressly declared, a court of equity, if not of law, will carry this intention into effect. And it has been held that a general assignment of "all the author's interest" in a copyright, assigned the conditional as well as the present interest. (y)
The Act of Congress of Aug. 18, 1856 (11 United States Statutes at Large, 188), provides that any copyright of the author or proprietor of any dramatic composition, confers the sole right of representation. (yy)