Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/165

 first page of each part and register each part separately, in which case the completed work should have the date or dates of the year or years within which the several parts were published. There seem to be no objections, within the law or from court decisions, to coupling two dates in the same notice, in such cases as "Copyright, 1910, 1911, by A.B.," though there is no specific decision on this point. Under the previous law a book published in more than one volume or part, the portions not complete in themselves, was probably protected by copyright entry of the first part, all parts being of course ultimately deposited; but the change in the new code basing copyright on publication with notice,seems to change this rule of practice. In the case of Dwight v. Appleton, in 1840, it was held that as the statute did not expressly prescribe that the copyright notice should appear in successive volumes after the first, this was not necessary; but the application of this doubtful decision under the new code would be more than questionable.

It may be emphasized that publication with notice is the first step in copyright under the new code, and that registration on deposit is the secondary and complet ing act, and therefore that no registry in the Copyright Office is necessary to authorize the printing of the copyright notice, as was formerly the case.

The requirement (sec. 9) that the notice of copyright "shall be affixed to each copy published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor" makes clear what was a subject of dispute under the old law. The courts, however, generally held that extraterritorial notice of copyright, i. e. on foreign editions, was impracticable and unnecessary; and this view is specifically adopted in the new code. In 1905, in Harper v. Donohue, it was held by Judge Sanborn, in the U. S. Circuit Court,