Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/270

 New York, through Judge Ward, who said: "As pictures only represent the artist's idea of what the author has expressed in words, they do not infringe a copyrighted book or drama and should not be enjoined." That illustrations may be protected as part of a book without reference to tiie engravings act,was held in Marshall v. Bull, in 1901, in the English Court of Appeal, which held also that though electrotype blocks had been legally sold, unauthorized reproduction from such blocks constituted infringement.

Likewise, a. description in words of a copyrighted work of art is probably permissible without infringement of copyright, when the work is published or publicly exhibited. But this does not hold good in the case of an unpublished or privately exhibited work, as was held in 1849 in the case of Prince Albert v. Strange, where a descriptive catalogue of unpublished etchings by Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort was enjoined, as well as the exhibition of prints therefrom unlawfully obtained.

In the case of portraits, whether by painting, sculpture or photography, an important question as to ownership arises. A portrait paid for by the subject or a person other than the artist is the property, for copyright as well as other purposes, exclusively of that person; but if an artist produces a portrait at his own expense, even if by the suggestion of another person, the right to copyright remains with the artist. The general principle was best stated by Judge Wheeler in 1894, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, in Press Pub. Co. v. Falk, where the World was held to have infringed the copyright in the photograph of an actress, copyrighted by the photographer and not paid for by her, though a complimentary copy, given to the actress, had been sent by her to the newspaper. "When a person has a negative taken