into a smaller compass, and rendering it less expensive, and more convenient both to the time and use of the reader, which made an abridgment in the nature of a new and a meritorious work." He further stated it as his own and Mr. Justice Blackstone's opinion, "that an abridgment, where the understanding is employed in retrenching unnecessary and uninteresting circumstances, which rather deaden the narration, is not an act of plagiarism upon the original work, nor against any property of the author in it, but an allowable and meritorious work."1

Without discussing at present the soundness of this definition of an allowable abridgment, it is sufficient to remark here, that if there are certain classes of works, such as translations, histories, &c. in which, by abridgment, a subsequent writer can acquire a new and independent title upon the footing of a new work, there are also other classes of works, with reference to which the doctrine of abridgment must encounter an exclusive title in the original author, so inseparable from the matter and substance of the work, that it must create the gravest doubts whether

1 Anon. Lofft's R. 775. The other authorities are Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 142. Bell v. Walker, 1 Brown's Ch. R. 450. Dodsley v. Kinnersly, Ambl. 403. Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves. 709. In these cases, the general doctrine of a fair bona fide abridgment, as constituting a new work, is taken for granted, but no approach is made to a definition of such an abridgment.

In Dodsley v. Kinnersly, Sir Thomas Clarke, M. R. said, that "no certain line can be drawn to distinguish a fair abridgment, but every case must depend on its own circumstances; and Mr. Justice Story, in Gray v. Russell, 1 Story's R. 11, 19, has made the same suggestion. The authorities will be found collected and examined in the chapter relating to piracy, post.

the pretensions of the subsequent writer can prevail over the rights of the original author.

It has been recently held, that an author has as much right in his plan, and in his arrangement, and in the combination of his materials, as he has in his thoughts, sentiments, opinions, and his modes of expressing them.' If this doctrine be correct, it follows that a subsequent author cannot, by abridgment, acquire a new and independent title in the plan, arrangement, and combination of materials, made use of by a former author, who has secured his title in the due course of law. It would seem to be quite as consistent with sound principle, to hold that a mechanician may acquire a new patent by making a reduced copy of an original machine, previously protected by a patent, as to hold that by the mere act of abridgment, a new title can be acquired in the peculiar matter of a book.2

1 Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story's R.

768.

For a further discussion of this subject, see post, Chap. IX.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE STATUTE REQUISITES FOR A VALID COPY

RIGHT.

1. In the United States.

2. In Great Britain.

1. THE act of congress of 3d February, 1831, § 4, requires that a printed copy of the title of any book, or books, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, to be entitled to the benefits of the act, shall, before publication, be deposited in the clerk's office of the district court of the United States for the district where the author or proprietor resides, which title is to be recorded by the clerk, and a certified copy of the title as recorded is to be delivered to the author or proprietor. Within three months from the publication, the author or proprietor is to deliver, or cause to be delivered, a copy of the book, map, &c. to the clerk, which it is made the duty of the clerk to transmit to the secretary of state.1

'Act of Cong. Feb. 3, 1831, § 4. See Appendix.

The fifth section of the same act makes it necessary to insert in the several copies of each and every edition published during the term secured, on the title-page, or the page immediately following, if it be a book; or if a map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, to impress on the face thereof, or if a volume of maps, charts, music, or engraving, upon the title or frontispiece thereof, the words, Entered according to act of congress, in by A. B., in the clerk's office of the

,

the year
district court of

These steps are all essential to a perfect title, according to a decision made by the supreme court of the United States, upon the former acts, that of 1790 and that of 1802. Upon those acts, it was held by the court, that although the right was vested, when a copy of the title was deposited with the clerk, and a copy of his record was printed, as the act of 1802 required, yet that the performance of the other conditions was essential to a perfect title.2

Sec. 5. See Appendix. The act of 1790, § 3, required the author or proprietor to publish a copy of the record or certificate of entry in one or more newspapers printed in the United States, for the space of four weeks. The act of 1802 required, that the copy of the record, which by the act of 1790 the author or proprietor was required to publish, should also be inserted in the page of the book next to the title. (See Appendix, p. 89.) With the exception of publication in the newspapers, and the time and mode of deposit in the secretary of state's

office, the requisites remain the same under the act of 1831, as they stood at the time that act was passed. The act of 1790, § 4, required the author or proprietors, within six months of the publication, to deliver or cause to be delivered to the secretary of state, a copy of the book, to be preserved in his office. The act of 1831 directs the copy for this purpose to be deposited with the clerk of the court, within three months from the date of publication.

2 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters S. C. R. 591, 663, 665. Upon this point, the court said, "It will be

As the law now stands, there are but three requisites for securing a valid copyright. 1. The deposit of a printed copy of the title, before publication, with