it had no title, would be sufficient.1 In Collingridge v. Emmott 2 the plaintiff's newspaper was intituled "Warehousemen and Drapers' Trade Journal and Review of the Textile Fabric Manufacturers"; but it was registered as "Warehousemen and Drapers' Trade Journal: Failures and Arrangements." Kay, J., thought that the discrepancy was fatal to the registration.

It has been questioned whether in the case of a volume, a considerable part of which, being old matter, is not entitled to copyright, and which is published under one comprehensive title, there must not be some indication on the book itself or on the register that the owner does not claim copyright in the whole work. The point has never been definitely decided. It has been held that one who adapts new words and music to an old air and describes himself proprietor of the whole composition is entitled to protection; 3 but the question raised in these cases was whether the author was entitled to copyright at all unless he could show that the whole was original. It should always be remembered in questions of this kind that the purpose of registration is not, as has frequently been suggested in argument, to notify to an intending copyist what he may copy and what he may not. In Cate v. Devon the plaintiffs had published a "Commercial Compendium," containing lists of bankruptcies and bills of sale. They reprinted several copies of it under another title, viz. "The London Association for the Protection of Trade," and it was issued "privately and confidentially" to that association. The defendants copied matter from the latter issue and pleaded that it was unregistered, and therefore that they were entitled to copy it. North, J., held that the act of the defendants was an infringement of copyright in the "Commercial Compendium," which was registered under that title. In his judgment he said :

"It is not intended that there should always be complete registration of the publication in which there is copyright in order that persons may know what they may legitimately copy and what they cannot copy. The

1 Per Coleridge, L.C.J., in Harris v. Smart (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.

2 (1887), 57 L. T. (N.S.), 864.

3 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N.S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1848), 7 C. B., Chappell v. Sheard (1855), 2 K. and J., 117. 4 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

4:

Act itself contains provisions which make that clear. It is well known that registration is only necessary as a condition precedent to suing, and i the almost universal practice on the part of large publishers notoriously is that they do not register until just on the eve of taking some proceeding. Then they take care to register their copyright and sue upon it. I think, therefore, that the contention that the defendants have not been warned by registration of the title under which the document appears is one which cannot be entertained." 1

The Time of First Publication.-This must be exactly entered to the day of the month. In Low v. Routledge an entry of "23rd May 1864" was held to be bad when the actual publication was on the 25th of May 1864.3 Under the International Copyright Act, 1844, an entry of the year only was held to be fatal,* and under the Copyright Act of 1842 it has been held in two cases that an entry of the month only is bad. When a subsequent edition of a book is published, in so far as it is a reprint of the first edition, it will not be protected unless the first edition and the date of the first publication thereof is entered on the register; in so far as it consists of new matter there must be an entry bearing the date of the publication of the edition in which such new matter was first published; but the previous editions and the date of their respective publications do not require to be entered in order to protect the new matter, and subsequent editions do not require to be entered in order to protect old matter. Where a book has been revised and altered as each new edition has come out, every edition should be entered separately in the register, with the date of the publication of such edition. When a story, or article, or serial story, or a series of articles is published in a magazine or other periodical, the proprietor of the magazine need only register the first number of the magazine and the date of the publication thereof in order to entitle him to sue.10 If, however, the action is at the instance

1 40 Ch. D., at p. 506.

3 As to what is publication, see p. 38.

2 (1864), 10 L. T. (N.S.), 838.

4 Wood v. Boosey (1867), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223.

5 Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 270; Collingridge v. Emmott (1887), 57 L. T. (N.S.), 864; and see Page v. Wisden (1869), 20 L. T. (N.S.), 435; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

6 Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.

7 Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew, 353; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N.S.), 418.

8 Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

9 Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

10 Henderson v. Maxwell (1876), 4 Ch. D., 163.

of the author of a contribution to a collective work against third parties, the proper registration would be of the story or article only with the date of the first publication in the collective work of such story or article, or if serial, of the first part thereof.1 Against the proprietor, for publishing separately without permission, the author does not require to be registered, as the right sued on is not one of copyright but presumably of implied contract. If the owner of the periodical has acquired the entire copyright in a story or article, he can sue on a registration either of the first number of the magazine or of the first part of the story or article.3

The Name and Place of Abode of the Publisher.—The publisher to be entered is the first publisher of the book. No subsequent publisher, unless of a revised edition, need be entered on the register. If the publishers are a firm it is sufficient to enter their firm name, such as Newby & Co.; the individual names of the members of the firm need not be entered. A publisher's ordinary place of business describes sufficiently his "place of abode" his private residential address need not be entered."

The Name and Place of Abode of the Proprietor.-The proprietor to be entered is the proprietor at the time of registration, and it is unnecessary to trace his title from the first proprietor.3 The joinder of the unregistered proprietor as co-plaintiff with a person who has been erroneously registered, or who, being rightly registered, is no longer proprietor, will not render an action for infringement of copyright maintainable. It is not sufficient to register a mere agent or nominee of the proprietor.10 The registered proprietor, however, if legal owner, may sue as trustee for the equitable owner of the copyright." If the plaintiff

1 Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

2 Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.

3 Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 434.

4 Bacon, V.C., in Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.

5 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

6 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq. 104;

Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

7 Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; 49 L. T. (N.S.), 339.

8 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

9 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

10 Petty v. Taylor [1897], I Ch., 465.

11 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., per Lindley, L.J., at pp. 301 and 302.

in an action is the assignee of a former proprietor already registered, either the assignment must have been by entry in the register, or the assignment, if made otherwise, must be entered. In every case the plaintiff, either as proprietor at the date of registration or as his assignee, must appear on the face of the register.1 It is probably not necessary to register every mesne assignment from the proprietor originally registered to the plaintiff. When the original proprietor is registered, and the assignee from him is subsequently registered, it is necessary that both entries should be correct, in order to entitle the assignee to sue. If the proprietor has no fixed abode in the United Kingdom, an address in the United Kingdom through which he can be conveniently communicated with will probably be a sufficient compliance with the statute.+

If there is an error in any of the particulars required to be entered in the register it is fatal to the success of an action, even although caused by neglect or carelessness on the part of one of the officials at Stationers' Hall.5 If the necessary particulars are entered it is immaterial that superfluous matter is also entered.

Certificate of Registration.-The officer appointed by the Stationers' Company for the purposes of registration under the Copyright Acts must, whenever reasonably required, give a copy of any entry in the Book of Registry, certified under his hand and impressed with the stamp of the Stationers' Company, to any person on payment of five shillings, and such copies are to be received in evidence in all Courts, and are prima facie proof of the proprietorship or assignment of copyright or licence, but subject to be rebutted by other evidence. Registration does not, however, give a title against the whole world except the true owner.8

1 Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.

452.

2 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

3 Low v. Routledge (1864), 33 L. J. Ch., 717; 10 L. T. (N.S.), 838.

A Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N.S.), 182.

Cassell v. Stiff (1856), 2 K. and J., 279.

6 Fairlie v. Boosey (1879), 4 A. C., 711.

7 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11; Hildesheimer & Faulkner v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. (N.S.),

8 Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.

False Entries. If any person wilfully makes or causes to be made any false entry in the Registry Book of the Stationers' Company, or wilfully produces in evidence any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any entry in such book, he will be guilty of an indictable misdemeanour.1

Rectification of Register.—If any person "deems himself aggrieved" by any entry in the Registry Book, he may apply by motion to the King's Bench Division for an order that such entry may be expunged or varied. An order to expunge will not be made at the trial of an action: it must be applied for by motion in accordance with section 14, unless, perhaps, it is specifically claimed in the statement of claim in the action. There is probably no appeal from an order to expunge. If a wrong entry has been made in the Book of Registry, the proprietor of the copyright in the book so erroneously entered is, even although he has by mistake made the wrong entry himself, a person aggrieved within the meaning of the statute, and can apply to the Court for an order to vary such entry. An order to expunge or vary will not be made without definite proof that the existing entry is erroneous, and that the proposed entry in lieu thereof is correct. By the words "deem himself aggrieved" the legislature did not mean that any person who said he was aggrieved could apply: the applicant must show to the Court that he has a right to consider himself aggrieved." When the copyright in a book is in dispute either party claiming the right is a party aggrieved. If a non-copyright book is entered on the register, probably any one who wished to copy it would be a party aggrieved; but it is not open to any one to make application to the Court on the ground of technical flaws in a registration.10 The applicant, unless he claims the copyright,

1 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 12.

2 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 14.

3 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; 48 L. J. Ch., 673.

4 In re The Young Duchess (1891), 8 T. L. R., 41.

5 Ex parte Poulton (1884), 53 L. J., Q. B., 320; in re Hall (1899), 24 Vict. L. R., 702.

6 Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; see in re Martin (1884), 10 Vict. L. R., Law., 196.

303.

7 Blackburn, J., Graves' case, 10 B. and S., at p. 688.

8 Ex parte Bastow (1854), 14 C. B., 631.

• Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W.,

10 Graves' case (1869), 4 Q. B., 715.