Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/109

 claimant, on interrogatories, to designate which parts are and which are not original. " If the parts cannot be separated," says Drone, "it would seem that copyright will not vest in any of it." The new code is to the same effect.

The application of these principles to the protection of a "new edition" which is new only with respect to added illustrations, is very simple. It is only the new illustrations which can be copyrighted, and it is matter for question whether the endeavor to protect an edition of unaltered text by a general copyright notice which really covers only a few added illustrations would not be a false use of the copyright notice. A proper copyright notice on an illustrated book will, however, protect the illustrations against indirect as well as direct reproduction; thus in 1908 in Harper v. Kalem, Judge Lacombe in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York protected certain illustrations in "Ben Hur" against their reproduction in moving pictures.

In respect to translations, the new American law is specific, not only in its mention of "translations" (sec. 6), but in giving (sec. I, b) the exclusive right "to translate the copyrighted work into other languages or dialects, or make any other version thereof, if it be a literary work." The early American precedent Wcis the case of "Uncle Tom's cabin," in 1853, in which Mrs. Stowe had copyrighted not only the original work, but a German translation which she had provided; Justice Grier in the U.S. Circuit Court held that she could not recover against one Thomas who was issuing another German translation, since it was not "copies of her book." This case was previous to the statute permitting authors to reserve the right of translation, and the new code as above cited fully protects translations. The author of a copyrighted