Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/230

 B06ENBACH V. DBBTFTTSS. £23 �must be sent to Washington. This also affords some indica» tioû that the words "works of the fine arts" a,re used in their proper and oustomary sense; but the words thernselrsa are too plain and well understood to be estended as the plainiiff claims. �The case of Ma/rsh v. Warren, li Blatch, 263, which is cited by plaintifs counsel, does not hold that "prints or labJs, designed to be used for any other article of manufacture, " as diptinguished from "prints" which are "pictorial illustrations, or works oonnected with the fine arts," are cqpyrightable, instead of patentable, It simply holds, in oonformity with the express provision of the third section of the act of Jan© 18, 1874, (18 St. 79,) that the provisions of the copyright law, as to the entry and registry of "prints," shall apply to this class of prints and labels under the supervision of the commissioner of patents, with the single exception of the feea to be paid to the commissioner. �This clearly does not make such prints and labels copyright able. It simply applies to those articles which, under Rev. St. 4929, are made patentable, certain provisions of the copyright law, which impose certain prescribed conditions on which the exclusive right or privilege granted is made to de- pend. In other words, the statute adopts for certain patentrîd articles, and applies to them, certain provisions of the copy- right law. �By the same third section such prints and labels are, by necessary implication, if not expressly, excluded from the category of copyrightable articles, if, by any liberal con- struction of the law, they might bave been held to be within it before, which I do not think was the case. �The act is entitled "An act to amend the law relating to patents, trade-marks and copyrights. " The law of copyrights (Eev. St. § 4962) requires every copyrighted article to be marked as copyrighted, and the law of patents required every patented article to be marked as patented, (Eev. St. 4900;) and in each case a penalty is imposed for the false use of the mark, (Eev. St. 4901, 4963.) ����