Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/276

 damage to his professional reputation. Where a copyrighted portrait of Lillian Russell was combined with a portrait of another actress, the composite photograph was held to be a violation of the copyright, in Springer Lith. Co. v. Falk, in 1894, by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Lacombe. So in the English case of Bolton v. London Exhibitions Co., in 1898, where a lithographer copied the outline of a lion from a copyrighted photograph, and filled in details from natural histories in making a circus poster. Justice Mathew in the Queen's Bench Division held that there had been reproduction of the photograph and that a work of art had been "vulgarized unlawfully." Where certain etchings and engravings had been copied by the Brooklyn Photogravure Co., omitting the tints, plate mark and title, it was held in 1892, in Fishel v. Lueckel, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York that this was an infringement; said Judge Townsend: "The appropriation of a part of the work is no less an infringement than the appropriation of the whole, provided 'the alleged infringing part contains any substantial repetitions of any material parts which are original and distinctive.'" And where a photograph of Julia Marlowe was reproduced in a lithograph, with many points of dissimilarity, some of them because of difference in process, it was held in Falk v. Donaldson Lith. Co., in 1893, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, that the differences did not constitute a defense. In Dr. Gaunsaulus's book, "The Man of Galilee," well-known pictures were altered substantially and artistically, as by the omission of a spinning wheel from a picture of the Nativity. Copies made from these illustrations were enjoined, though the original pictures were noncopyrighted, in Monarch Book Co. v. Neil, in 1900, by