a book from a copy unlawfully imported is a clear infringement,25% but it is equally an infringement although the particular copy reproduced was lawfully imported.25%

Under the English statute, the importation of piratical copies is prohibited on notice to the customs authorities by the copyright proprietor,26 and copyright is infringed by anyone who imports for sale or hire, within the operation of the act, any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright.27 Under prior statutes, a book in which there was international copyright could not lawfully be imported into England except by or with the authority of the English proprietor, although lawfully published and sold in the county of its origin." Knowledge of the piracy was immaterial under the Copyright Act of 1842.29

28

importation of piratical copies, unless the obscure. and limited provisions of the act of 1891 may be construed as such;14 but it did provide that any one importing copies of the copyrighted work without the written consent of the proprietor, or selling or exposing for sale such copies knowing them to have been so imported, should forfeit every such copy to the proprietor,15 and in the case of books, should pay such damages as might be recovered in a civil action,16 and in other cases pay a specified penalty based on the number of such infringing sheets or copies. These provisions penalizing the unauthorized importation of copies of copyrighted works constituted, by necessary implication, a prohibition of such importation,18 and such prohibition was enforced by the customs authorities.19 The express prohibition contained in the amendment of 189120 was construed to apply to works which had been copyrighted before, as well as to those copyrighted after, the passage of the act,21 and to unauthorized or piratical copies, as well as to authorized copies;22 and the statutory exceptions to the prohibition made by this act were construed to apply also to the implied prohibition previously existing, thus authorizing the importation of piratical copies. within the limits of such exceptions.23 None of these exceptions, however, authorized the importation of piratical copies for sale,24 and the construction which authorized any importation of piratical copies is more than doubtful.25 But the matter is now academic. The unauthorized republication of 14. 23 Op. Atty.-Gen. 445 (Knox). | publication and proceeded to repub- on the part of the court justified Domestic manufacturing require-lish the same in the United States,

ments see infra § 441.

15. See supra §§ 368, 369.

16.

17.

18.

See supra § 363.

See supra § 371.

23 Op. Atty.-Gen. 445 (Knox). 19. See Customs Regulations of the United States, 1900, pp 210-212; Copyright Office Bul. No. 3 pp 119, 120.

20. Act March 3 1891, (26 U. S. St. at L. 1106 c 565 § 3).

21. 21 Op. Atty.-Gen. 159 (Conrad). See also infra § 441. 22. 21 Op. Atty.-Gen. 159 (Conrad); Treas. Dec. (1895) p 125; Treas. Dec. (1895) p 495; Treas. Dec. (1896) p 66. See infra § 441.

23. 21 Op. Atty.-Gen. 159 (Conrad); Treas. Dec. (1895) p 125. 24. Treas. Dec. (1896) p 66.

Under the Canadian statute, unauthorized importation is prohibited and constitutes an infringement.30 Knowledge of the copyright is not essential to liability.31

[§ 440] 2. False Notice of Copyright. The importation into the United States of any article bearing a false notice of copyright, when there is no existing copyright thereon in the United States, is prohibited by the present law32 under penalty of a fine, if done knowingly,33 and was prohibited by the former law34 under a penalty recoverable in a qui tam action at the suit of a common informer.35 [441] 3. Domestic Manufacturing Requirements -a. General Rule. During the existence of the

as

such book having been imported in violation of Rev. St. § 4956, amended by act March 3, 1891, c 565 (26 St. at L. 1107) defendants could found no rights thereon, and their publication was an infringement of the copyright and was enjoined. Harper v. Donohue, 144 Fed. 491, 498 (where the court said: "It is further insisted that as it is admitted defendants' publication is not taken from complainant's book, but from the authorized English edition, published without notice of copyright, the case fails. This position is supported by quotation from Drone on Copyright, 399, 400, and Johnson v. Donaldson, 3 Fed. 22, 18 Blatchf. 287. The Chicago Tribune Case is also in point here, since the defendant in 25. See United Dictionary Co. v. that case received and published G. & C. Merriam Co., 208 U. S. 260, telegraphic dispatches from the Lon28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478 (referring don Times covering extracts from to 21 Op. Atty.-Gen. 159, 162). its columns; and it was held that 252. G. & C. Merriam Co. V. the Tribune could not prevent this United Dictionary Co., 146 Fed. 354, 76 by copyrighting its own paper, covCCA 470 [rev 140 Fed. 768 and affering other extracts or articles from 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. the Times. But I think the rule in478]; Harper v. Donohue, 114 Fed. applicable to this case, because de491; D'Almaine v. Boosey, 4 L. J. fendants did something expressly Exch. 21. prohibited by the copyright law. [a] Rule applied.-(1) Where com- Section 4956 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, plainant simultaneously published p. 3407], as added to in 1891, proand copyrighted a dictionary in Eng- vided: During the existence of such land and the United States, the Eng- copyright the importation into the lish book being somewhat different United States of any book so copyfrom the domestic, the publication in righted, or any edition or editions the United States of a photographic thereof, or any plates of the same, reprint of the English edition im- not made from type set withported for that purpose constituted in the limits of the United States, shall be and it is hereby prohibited.

an infringement of complainant's copyright. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co., 146 Fed. 354, 76 CCA 470 [rev 140 Fed. 868, and aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478]. (2) The English author of a novel by contract authorized its publication in Great Britain, and also by a separate contract gave the exclusive right of publication in the United States to a firm of American publishers, and the latter copyrighted the work in this country. The English publication was made from type set there and contained no notice of the American copyright. Defendants imported a copy of such

Defendants did just what is here
prohibited. They imported a sub-
stantial copy of "The Masquerader'

not made from type set in this coun-
try. They are, therefore, within the
condemnation of the law. They can-
not be allowed to found legal rights
on acts made unlawful by being pro-
hibited. In the dictionary case above
referred to [G. & C. Merriam Co. v.
United Dictionary Co., 140 Fed. 768]
defendant imported the books, as
did defendants here, but they were
made from plates made in this
country. It did nothing prohibi-
ted, and was, with some reluctance

in so doing. But see the Merriam Case on appeal [146 Fed. 354, 76 CCA 470 (aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478)]").

251%. G. & C. Merriam Co. V. United Dictionary Co., 146 Fed. 354. 76 CCA 470 [rev 140 Fed. 768, and aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478]. Contra Harper v. Donohue, 144 Fed. 491.

26. St. 1 & 2 Geo. V c 46 § 14.

27. St. 1 & 2 Geo. V c 46 § 2 (2). See Black v. Imperial Book Co., 8 Ont. L. 9, 3 OntWR 467 [dism app 5 Ont. L. 184, 2 OntWR 117, and app dism 35 Can. S. C. 488] (under 5 & 6 Vict. c 45); Millar & Lang, Ltd. v. Polak, [19081 1 Ch. 433 (under Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862).

28. Pitts v. George, [1896] 2 Ch. 866.

29. Cooper v. Whittingham, 15 Ch. D. 501.

30. Morang v. Publishers Syndicate, 32 Ont. 393; Frowde v. Parrish, 27 Ont. 526; Anglo-Canadian Music Publishers Assoc. v. Winnifrith, 15 Ont. 164.

31. Anglo-Canadian Music Publishers Co. v. Winnifrith, 15 Ont. 164, 167. "It does not appear to be necessary under the Act that the defendants should be shewn to have imported for sale the books containing the infringements, with knowledge of the plaintiffs' rights, in order to entitle the plaintiffs to succeed, either in a motion of this nature, or in an action to recover penalties, which this is not. The absence of such knowledge on the

part of the defendants, ought certainly in most cases of either nature mining the question of costs, and to be an important factor in deterthe amount of the penalty to be imposed in an action for penalties, but would not disentitle the plaintiffs to an injunction." Anglo-Canadian Music Publishers Assoc. v. Winnifrith, supra.

32. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 30). See infra § 449.

33.

American copyright in any book the importation into the United States of any copies thereof, whether authorized by the proprietor or piratical, which have not been produced in accordance with the domestic manufacturing provisions, or the importation of any plates of the same not made from type set within the limits of the United States, or any copies thereof produced by lithographic or photo-engraving process not performed within the limits of the United States as required by the statute,36 is prohibited,37 with certain specified and limited exceptions.38 The prohibition applies as well to works previously copyrighted under prior statutes as to works subsequently copyrighted under the act of 1909.39 Books copyrighted under the

36. See supra §§ 100, 178.

37. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31); 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 209 (Wickersham); 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 90 (Wickersham).

[a] Under the prior law there was a similar prohibition. G. & C. Merriam Co. V. United Dictionary Co., 146 Fed. 354, 76 CCA 470 [rev 140 Fed. 768, and aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478]; Harper v. Donohue, 144 Fed. 491 [aff 146 Fed. 1023 mem, 76 CCA 678 mem]. 38. See infra § 442.

39. 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 90 (Wickersham).

[a] Construction of statute by attorney-general.-"On October 5. 1909, there arrived at the port of New York, per steamship Lapland, certain books consigned to The C. Wildermann Company. These books were copyrighted by H. L. Kilner & Co. on January 5, 1909, and their importation was authorized by the copyright proprietor. They were printed from type set and plates made in the United States, and the printed sheets were sent to Belgium and there bound, and they were then reimported in the finished condition. The appraiser has reported that their importation is illegal under section 31 of the copyright law of March 4, 1909, in that they were not bound in the United States, and for that reason they have been detained by the collector; and you ask my opinion whether or not the holding of the appraiser is correct. My attention has been called to two opinions from this department construing and applying a similar provision in the copyright act of 1891 (26 Stat. 1107), one by SolicitorGeneral Conrad (21 Op. 159) and the other by Attorney-General Griggs (23 Op. 371), which, it is supposed, have some bearing upon the question here presented. In the

laws of the United States and printed from type set and plates made in this country, the printed sheets of which were sent abroad and there bound, cannot legally be returned to or imported into the United States.10 But copyrighted books which have been printed from type set within the United States, and the printing and binding of which have both been performed within the limits thereof, may be rebound abroad and imported without violating the statute.41

[ 442] b. Exceptions to Rule. Except as regards piratical copies, the prohibition against importation of articles not produced in accordance with the domestic manufacturing requirements of the act does not apply to the following classes of articles: of 1891 by Attorney-General Griggs. Said section 31 provides that: 'During the existence of the American copyright in any book the importation into the United States of any piratical copies thereof or of any copies thereof (although authorized by the author or proprietor) which have not been produced in accordance with the manufacturing pro visions specified in section fifteen of this act, is prohibited. This language clearly embraces every Amer ican copyright in a book, regardless of whether that copyright was obtained under the copyright laws embodied in the Revised Statutes, or the act of 1891, or the copyright_act of 1909. If the statute were otherwise, it would have produced the anomalous

ac

However,

condition that books copyrighted prior to March 3, 1891. would not be prohibited from importation by any manufacturing provision; that books copyrighted after March 3, 1891, and prior to July 1. 1909, the date upon which the act of March 4, 1909, became effective, would be prohibited unless printed from type set in the United States or from plates made from type set in the United States, while books copyrighted after July 1, 1909. would be prohibited, if not printed from type set in the United States or from plates made from type set therein, and the printing and binding both performed within the limits of the United

importation, because the copyright was procured under the copyright law as it existed before said amendment was made. While there was a difference in the facts presented, yet it is difficult to draw any distinction between the principles involved in these two opinions. The question answered in the first was: 'Whether section 3 of said act (of 1891) is applicable to books copyrighted prior to the passage of said act,' and precisely the same question was presented and answered in the second opinion. But, although doubt was expressed in the latter as to the correctness of the result reached in the former, yet it was suggested that a distinction arose from the fact that in the former opinion the statute was invoked to protect an American copyright against the importation of a piratical edition, while in the latter the statute, if applied, would prevent an importation sought to be made by the owner himself of the American copyright. The result was, if the opinions were sufficiently consistent to stand together, that the owners of an American copyright obtained under laws existing before the passage of the act of 1891, received the benefits arising from section 3 of said act, while upon them were not imposed the burdens which were made to company those benefits. the opposite conclusions reached in those opinions was manifestly the result, not of a difference in the principles involved, but a difference in the process of reasoning. In the former opinion it was held in substance that inasmuch as section 3 was an amendment of section 4956, Revised Statutes, it applied to all copyrights procured thereunder, before as well as after the amendment, although it could not have a retro[a] Reason for rule."Manifestly active effect as to importations of first opinion above mentioned the books made before the passage of a book is produced within the meaning of said section 31 when it is facts apparently were that American the amendment; while Attorney-Gen- printed and bound, and the binding owners of an American copyright eral Griggs based his conclusion required to be done in the United obtained on an American literary upon the peculiar language of secStates is the original binding, the work before the passage of the act tion 4956, Revised Statutes, as one which enters into the original of 1891 were seeking, under that act, amended, holding that the language production of the book. When the to prevent the importation of an during the existence of such copy-manufacture of the book is thus unauthorized foreign edition, and right the importation into the United completed, it is entitled to all the Solicitor-General Conrad held that States of any book, etc., so copy-protection offered by the copyright the above-quoted provision was ap-righted,' so restricted the clause in laws, and it may be exported and plicable and prohibited their impor- question as to make it apply only thereafter imported at the pleasure tation, although the copyright was to copyrights issued under the act of the owner and without any vionot issued under said act of 1891. as amended. I am inclined to think lation of section 31 of the act. In the latter opinion the facts were that, in so holding, due considera- There is, furthermore, nothing in the that Harper & Bros. were endeavor- tion was not given to the fact that act to indicate any intention that a ing to import an eighth edition of the words upon which special stress book may be deprived of this proLiddel & Scott's Greek-English Lexi- was laid were, by the act, made a tection or right of importation, when con, which had been copyrighted in part of said section 4956. Revised it has once been acquired.' If it the United States under the copy- Statutes, and thus a part of the gen- shall become necessary or proper right laws existing before the pas- eral copyright law, and were, there- that the book be rebound, it is not sage of the act of 1891, said impor- fore, intended to apply to all copy- thereby made a new book but retation consisting of the folded and rights issued thereunder, regardless mains the same book, the one that unstitched sheets, designed to be of whether issued before or after was printed and originally bound in stitched and bound in volumes in the passage of the act of 1891. But the United States as required by the this country, but which had not been I do not regard either of these opin- statute. I am of the opinion, thereprinted from type set within the ions as having any special bearing fore, that the rebinding abroad of a limits of the United States; and At- upon the question now in hand, inas- book copyrighted in the United torney-General Griggs held that the much as the language of section 31 States does not operate to exclude prohibition contained in section 4956, of the act of March 4, 1909, does such book from reimportation." 28 Revised Statutes. as amended by not admit of the construction that | Op. Atty.-Gen. 209, 210 (Wickersaid act of 1891, did not prohibit the was placed upon section 3 of the act sham).

States. Such a result. I think, was never intended by Congress, and I am therefore of the opinion that the appraiser was right in holding that the importation in question unlawful." 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 90, 91, 92 (Wickersham). 40. 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 90 (Wickersham). sham). 41. 28 Op. Atty.-Gen. 209 (Wicker

was

44

(1) To works in raised characters for the use of the blind;42 (2) to a foreign newspaper or magazine, although containing matter copyrighted in the United States printed or reprinted by authority of the copyright proprietor, unless such newspaper or magazine contains also copyright matter printed or reprinted without such authorization;43 (3) to the authorized edition of a book in foreign language or languages of which only a translation into English has been copyrighted in this country; (4) to any book published abroad with the authorization of the author or copyright proprietor when imported under the circumstances stated in the four classes of cases set out below.45 It is specifically provided, however, that copies. imported under the last mentioned exception to the prohibition may not lawfully be used in any way to violate the rights of the proprietor of the American copyright or to annul or limit the copyright protection secured under the act, and that such unlawful use shall be deemed an infringement of copyright. The provisions against importation in the prior law ran along the same lines, regard being had to the narrower scope of the domestic manufacturing requirements; but the exceptions to the prohibition were somewhat broader.47

46

[§ 443] B. Remedies for Unlawful Importation.18

Any and all articles prohibited importation by the copyright act which are brought into the United States from any foreign county (except in the mails) may be seized and forfeited by like proceedings as those provided by law for the seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States in violation of the customs revenue laws.49 Such articles when forfeited are required to be destroyed in such manner as the secretary of the treasury or the court may direct,50 except in the case of authorized editions which may be exported and returned to the country of export whenever it is shown to the satisfaction of the secretary, of the treasury, in a written application, that such importation does not involve willful negligence or fraud.51 The secretary of the treasury and the postmastergeneral are empowered and required to make joint rules and regulations to prevent importation of copyrighted works in violation of the statute.52 Substantially similar provisions for stopping unlawful importations at the customhouse were contained in the former law.53 The act of 1897 authorized an injunction against the issuing, publishing, or selling of any article imported in violation of the copyright laws at the suit of any person complaining of such violation.5 This was repealed by the present law which contains no corresponding provision.

54

XIII. OFFENSES AND PROSECUTIONS

[444] A. Infringement-1. United States Statutes. Any person who willfully and for profit in

42. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (a)).

43. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (b)).

44. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (c)).

45. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (d)).

[a] Provisions of statute.-"First. When imported, not more than one copy at one time, for individual use and not for sale; but such privilege of importation shall not extend to a foreign reprint of a book by an American author copyrighted in the United States; Second. When imported by the authority or for the use of the United States; Third. When imported, for use and not for sale, not more than one copy of such book in any one invoice. in good faith, by or for any society or institution incorporated for educational, literary, philosophical, scientific, or religious purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning, or for any State, school, college, university, or free public library in the United States; Fourth. When such books form parts of libraries or collections purchased en bloc for the use of societies, institutions, or libraries designated in the foregoing paragraph, or form parts of the libraries or personal baggage belonging to persons or families arriving from foreign countries and are not intended for sale." Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (d)). 46. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 31 (d)).

47. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. United Dictionary Co., 140 Fed. 768 [rev on other grounds 146 Fed. 354, 76 CCA 470 (aff 208 U. S. 260, 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478)].

[a] Extent and reason of statutory changes.-"Section 31 prohibits the importation into the United States of any piratical copies or of any copies whatever which have not been produced in accordance with the manufacturing provisions specified in this act, but that except as regards piratical copies the prohibition shall not apply in certain cases, viz: (a) To works in raised characters for the use of the blind.

tions of learning objected to any change in the existing law, which gave them rights of importation. The committee sought to find a fair middle ground between these conflicting interests. The right of im

fined by the provision in the bill to books by foreign authors, and the number which may be imported at any time is reduced from two to one; and the privilege heretofore accorded to libraries and institutions of learning, etc., to import was changed so that they could import only one book in any one invoice, but no further restriction, such as is applied to importation for individual use, was placed upon the importations for libraries, etc. They are still permitted to import a book by a foreign author or a foreign reprint of a book by an American author. Your committee believe that this is a fair and equitable solution of this rather troublesome question. Subdivision second, which refers to importation of copyrighted books, etc., for the United States Government, is reenactment of existing law and is, of course, without any restriction. Subdivision fourth changes in some respects the existing law. The law now provides that books or libraries or parts of libraries and other household effects of persons or families from foreign countries, if actually used abroad by them not less than one year and not intended for any other person or persons nor for sale, are not prohibited importation and are on the free list in the tariff bill." Mr. Currier's report to House of Representatives, 60th Congress, Session, Report No. 2222 p 17.

| This is a reenactment of existing
law. (b) To foreign newspapers or
magazines containing copyright mat-
ter, upon certain conditions. This is
a substantial reenactment of exist-
ing law. (c) To the authorized
edition of a book in a foreign lan-portation for individual use is con-
guage of which only a translation
has been copyrighted in this country.
This, too, is the substantial reenact-
ment of existing law. Subdivisions
first and third of subsection (d)
can be considered together. Prior to
the act of March 3, 1891, works by
foreign authors could not be copy-
righted in this country unless the
authors resided here at the date of
publication, and hence the right of
importation into this country was
without limitation or restriction so
far as the copyright laws were con-
cerned. Under the provisions of that
act the right to take out a copyright
in this country was given to foreign
authors. That act as originally
drawn provided that no books except
for colleges and institutions of learn-
ing could be imported into this
country without the consent of the
copyright proprietor, and that even
for such institutions of learning only
in limited numbers. A compromise
was made, and the bill as enacted
into law excepted from the pro-
hibition of importation articles
named in paragraphs 512 to 516, in-
clusive, of the McKinley bill. All
these articles, which include books
for libraries, institutions of learning,
etc., were and ever since have been
on the free list in the tariff bills. In
addition to these exceptions, the act
of March 3, 1891, excepted from the
prohibition of importation two copies
of a book at any one time by any
person, for use and not for sale, upon
payment of the tariff duty. Another
exception, found in that law but not
made in this bill, was that of books,
engravings, etc., printed and bound
and manufactured more than twenty
years before the date of importation.
The American copyright proprietors
and publishers insisted that this was
an illogical exception and that no
books copyrighted in this country
ought to be imported without the
consent of the copyright proprietor
here. On the other hand, those in-
terested in libraries and in institu-

2d

48. Criminal or penal prosecution see infra § 445.

49. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 32).

50. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 32).

51. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 32).

52. Act March 4, 1909 (35 U. S. St. at L. 1075 c 320 § 33). 53. TT. S. rev St 4958. amended by Act March 3, 1891 (26 U. S. St. at L. 1106 c 565 § 4).

54. Act March 3, 1897 (29 U. S. St. at L. 694 c 392 § 1).

See Ex p. Francis, [1903] 1 K. B. 275; In re Francis, 88 L. T. Rep. N. S. 806 (both decided under the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act of 1902 [2 Edw VII c 15]). 69. St. 6 Edw. VII c 36 § 1 (1). 70. Rex v. Willetts, 70 J. P. 127. 71. Cr. Code pt VII § 508a (which provides: "Any person who, without the written consent of the owner of the copyright or of his legal representative, knowingly performs or causes to be performed in public and for private profit the whole or any part, constituting an infringement, of any dramatic or operatic work or musical composition in which copyright subsists in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to such fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months, or to both").

72. Cr. Code pt VII § 508b (which

405; Ferrett v. Atwill, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,747, 1 Blatchf. 151.

86. Taft v. Stephens Lith., etc., Co., 38 Fed. 28; Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 2 Fed. 217.

[a] Subject of copyright within rule.-A cut or print may be a proper subject of copyright, although the person by whom it is prepared is not entitled to copyright it. Rigney v. Dutton, 77 Fed. 176. 87. Act (29 U. March 3, 1897 at S. St. L. 694); McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck, etc., Co., 191 U. S. 267, 24 SCt 105, 48 L. ed. 178 [aff 115 Fed. 85, 53 CCA 508].

88. Sufficiency of notice of copyright see supra §§ 214-217.

89. Hoertel v. Raphael Tuck Sons Co., 94 Fed. 844.

[a] Notice omitting date of copyright. The penalty was not incurred by using a notice which was defective in that it did not contain any date of alleged copyright. Hoertel v. Raphael Tuck Sons Co., 94 Fed. 844. 90. Rigney v. Raphael Tuck, etc., Co., 77 Fed. 173 (where it was held that the notice need not be inserted on one of the pages named in Rev. St. § 4962).

91. Taft v. Stephens Lith., etc., Co., 38 Fed. 28.

92. Taft v. Stephens Lith., etc., Co., 38 Fed. 28.

93. Taft v. Stephens Lith., etc., Co.. 38 Fed. 28.

94. Ross v. Raphael Tuck, etc.,

Co., 91 Fed. 128, 33 CCA 405. insertion [a] Personal sary. The penalty is incurred by one who causes the publication in a trade paper of an uncopyrighted print or cut, with a notice of copyright attached, although he does not himself insert or impress such notice. ney v. Dutton, 77 Fed. 176.

95. See supra § 89.

96. United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co., 208 U. S. 260. 28 SCt 290, 52 L. ed. 478; McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck, etc., Co., 191 U. S. 267, 24 SCt 105, 48 L. ed. 178 [aff 115 Fed. 85, 53 CCA 508]; Ross v. Raphael Tuck, etc., Co., 91 Fed. 128, 33 CCA 405.

97. Act March 3, 1897 (29 U. S. St. at. L. 694); McLoughlin v. Raphael