Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/132

 The right of a contributor to have his name associated with his work in the case of an encyclopaedia, at issue in Basil Jones v. American Law Book Co., where the individual writer's name was replaced by that of a distinguished jurist, though upheld in 1905 by Judge McCall in the N.Y. Supreme Court, was denied in the reversal of this decision in 1908 by the Appellate Division through Judge Houghton.

Where a publisher had affixed additional material to a copyrighted book, the author was denied relief in Holloway v. Bradley, in 1886, by Judge Butler in the U.S. Circuit Court; but this decision would not hold where the added material was so placed as to give the false impression that it was written by the author of the copyrighted work. Thus in 1910, in Gilbert v. Workman, Sir W.S. Gilbert obtained an order in the Chancery Division through Justice Neville against the interpolation of a song into his copyrighted opera without his consent.

This would hold true to like extent in respect to alterations, which might be permissible when in the nature of proof-reading correction or editorial revision, but contrary to equity when they pervert, obscure, or otherwise misrepresent the author.

In respect to composite works, the new American code indicates (sec. 23) that there may be separate registration of contributions, inferentially in the person of "an individual author," as distinguished from the general entry for copyright of the composite work. This doubtless refers to the practice, for instance, of the entry in his own name of his specific work, by a novelist or other contributor to a periodical, in addition to the general entry of the number of the periodical of which it is a copyrightable component part. The only direct effect is to give to the specific author prima facie evidence of ownership in his specific