PROPERTY. 



263 



manuscript or print. When these thoughts take the 

 form of property the law treats them as it does all 

 other property. The owner has the right to claim 

 protection against the improper use or appropriation 

 by others of his property ; he may give it away or 

 abandon it to the general public ; he may derive an in- 

 come from it, may sell it, or dispose of it by will. Al- 

 though it is necessary, in order to receive the protec- 

 tion of the law, that literary property be put into 

 some form, the author's property does not consist in 

 the form or the substance upon which his mental pro- 

 ductions are inscribed, but in the thoughts, sentiments, 

 and ideas themselves. 



The author's rights in and to his property depend 

 upon what is called the common law and certain statu- 

 tory enactments. His right to his own exclusive con- 

 trol and disposal of his manuscript has never been 

 doubted, but whether he had a common law copyri glit, 

 that is, a right to multiply and distribute for his own 

 sole benefit copies of his work, or whether by such 

 multiplication and distribution the author did not lose 

 his exclusive right by abandonment to the public, have 

 been debated questions. These differences of opinion 

 have been further emphasized by the consideration of 

 the effect of copyright statutes. The various opinions 

 upon this subject seem to group themselves into three 

 views : First, that at common law an author had the 

 right of multiplying copies for his own benefit ; sec- 

 ondly, that he had not such right until it was given to 

 him by statute; and, thirdly, that, although he had a 

 copyright at common law. the statute took it away 

 from him and gave him instead a statutory copyright, 

 which thereafter wns the only one he possessed. In 

 the history of judicial discussions upon the subject of 

 the author's right of property all of these views at 

 times have come to the surface. In some of the 

 earlier caecs injunctions against the piracy of books 

 were granted upon the ground of the author's common 

 law copyright. In 1710, in the reign of Anne, the 

 first copyright statute was passed. The first view of 

 this statute seems to have been that it did not take 

 away the common law copyright, but was intended to 

 afford additional remedies against piracy. In 1769 the 

 question of the piracy of Thomson i tienxrm* came lie- 

 fore the court. In this case (Mlllnr vs. T<u/lr, 4 Burr. 

 2303) the statutory copyright had expired, and a major- 

 ity of the court held that literary property did exist 

 at common law and was not taken away by the statute 

 The same question again presented itself for decision 

 in 1774, in the case of DonnMunn vs. lirclcet (4 Burr. 

 2408), which was carried upon appeal to the House of 

 Lords, where the final judgment, which has been the 

 law from that day to this, was that the statute of Anne 

 had taken away the author's common law copyright, 

 and the only rights of publication he had thereafter 

 were such as the statute secured to him. And this de- 

 cision was followed by the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, when the same question presented itself, in the 

 case of Wkeuton vs. Peteri (8 Pet. 591), under our own 

 statute of copyright. 



Copyright statutes are intended to protect the au- 

 thor's rights in the multiplication and distribution of 

 copies of his work. In most other respects his rights 

 are governed hv the usual common law rules applicable 



.. . t. 



tc personal 

 property 



property. The great value of literary 

 as a source of gain, consists in its owner's 



ability to make and circulate copies without interfer- 

 ence orcom petition from others. The author's control 

 of his manuscript is exclusive and absolute, but by 

 dedicating his property to the use of the public he 

 loses this sole possession. Publication of a work in- 

 tended to be protected by the copyright statute, with- 

 out compliance with the requirements of that act, is a 

 dedication to the public. Literary property may lie 

 dedicated to the public by any act of its owner which 

 shows that he abandons his exclusive right of property. 

 Such dedication, however, must be the free, voluntary 



consent or knowledge. The mere gift of a manuscript 

 confers no right to publish. A restricted circulation 

 of copies, as among friends, indicates no abandonment 

 of the owner's right of property ; nor does the use of 

 a manuscript for a particular purpose, as lectures read 

 to a class, give any right to a student or hearer to print 

 and sell for profit, or in any way interfere with the lec- 

 turer's rights. (Aljfriittliry vs. Jliitcliinmn, 1 H. & T. 

 39 ; Morrison vs. Moat, 1 Edw. ch. 25 : Miller s Appeal, 

 15, W. N. C. (Pa.) 27). 



While intellectual productions must assume some 

 form in order to be recognized, identified, and protected 

 as property, no particular form is prescribed, and 

 whether the property exists in manuscript or print the 

 owner's rights are equally protected if he has dono 

 nothing to prejudice them. The writer of a letter does 

 not lose his right of property in it by sending it to his 

 correspondent. The sending of the letter is a gift to 

 the receiver of it of the material upon and by which it 

 is written, and the writer loses control over his manu- 

 script to the extent that he cannot demand its return; 

 but no rights of publication are conferred upon the one 

 to whom it is sent, and the writer could restrain such 

 publication, and his right to dp this is upon the ground 

 that he has not parted with his property. There may 

 be cases where, perhaps, for his own vindication, the 

 receiver pf_a letter which reflected upon him might 

 have the right to publish, but some necessity of the 

 kind must exist to justify such a course. 



A very common form in which literary property ap- 

 pears is the daily newspaper. These are rarely, if 

 ever, copyrighted. They certainly come within the 

 language of the act and could be copyrighted if de* 

 sired. But as the great object of such a paper is the 

 first circulation of news, not much would be gained by 

 simply providing against the piracy of its contents. 

 Of course, the publication of valuable material, as let- 

 ters, or a novel, may be protected by copyrighting 

 such matter for a newspaper or any serial publication. 

 A copyright by the editor of any matter published in 

 his paper would not give him the right to publish it in 

 any other form. The title of a newspaper is valuable 

 property, and the proprietor can be protected against 

 the unlawful use of it by others, but he cannot secure 

 this protection by copyright, as a title cannot be copy- 

 righted by itself, but only as part of a work. 



A dramatist's rights in his property differ somewhat 

 from those that pertain to any other kind of literary 

 property. He may have his copyright in it as a liter- 

 ary production, and also his playright or the right of 

 representation upon the stage. And as the value of a 

 book, as a source of profit, consists in the right to 

 multiply and sell copies, the value of a play consists 

 largely in the right to perform it and prevent others 

 from doing so. It is a recognized rule of law that 

 where any kind of literary property is not included 

 within the terms of a statute of copyright the owner's 

 rights are to be determined by the ordinary rules of 

 the common law applicable to such property. The 

 U. S. copyright statutes refer to plays in two respects 

 only. They provide that when an author obtains a 

 copyright for a dramatic composition he only is entitled 

 to represent, or cause to be represented, such play, 

 and, further, that for the unauthorized publishing of 

 any one's manuscript damages may be recovered. If, 

 therefore, a play is printed, the only right of perform- 

 ance is tlie one conferred by the statute, and, accord- 

 ing to the rule which has been followed in the case of 

 copyrighted books, the statute has taken away the au- 

 thor's common law rights. But as the statute nowhere 

 refers to manuscript plays, it would seem that the 

 author's common law rights in them still exist to their 

 fullest extent. And as the author of a book had at 

 common law the exclusive right to multiply copies 

 for the decisions say only that that right was taken 

 away by the statute the dramatist had and still luis 

 the exclusive right to the performance of his drama. 



act of the owner, and not ot sonic one clso without his I The question whether the public performance of a 



