Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/219

 v. Strange in 1849. But a dramatic author cannot enjoin a drama, however similar, completed before the publication or performance of his own work, as was decided in the case of Reichardt v. Sapte, in 1893, where the author of " The picture dealer" was denied relief against the closely parallel play "A lucky dog," which was proved to have been completed in 1890, though not performed until after the writing and presentation of the author's play in 1892.

The right of control of an unpublished dramatic manuscript under common law was strengthened in 'Heme v. Liebler, in 1902, by the decision of Judge Ingraham in the N. Y. Supreme Court, which upheld the right of the plaintiff to prevent sub-license of a play beyond the terms of the contract by a licensee, who had agreed to keep the manuscript unpublished and use it only under specific limitations. In the case of Maxwell v. Goodwin, in 1899, where the plaintiff's play of "Congress" had been rejected by the defendant, who afterward produced a play "Ambition," also founded on scenes in Washington, Judge Seaman in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois overruled the defendant's contentions that there was no playright under common law in an unpublished manuscript and that there was no inherent property right in " ideas or creations of the imagination apart from the manuscript in which they are contained or the language in which they are clothed; though an injunction was denied on proof that the defendant had not read the plaintiff's manuscript and that the actual author of "Ambition" had no knowledge of the plaintiff's play.

In 1883, in Thomas v. Lennon, where Gounod's " Redemption," of which the orchestral score was un published, had been rewritten for orchestra from a