Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/562

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES of vessels plying on the river. The ordinance under which the tunnel was constructed con tained no stipulation that the city would not exert any power it possessed to deepen the chan nel and improve navigation, and was adopted while a state statute was in force, which, as con strued by the courts, made it»a condition of the construction of such a tunnel that navigation should not be unnecessarily interrupted. Under these circumstances it was held that requiring the railway company at its own expense to lower or remove the tunnel, did not impair any con tract obligation or constitute a denial to the rail way company of the equal protection of the laws. It is likewise declared that the City of Chicago was empowered, even without the approval of the Secretary of War, to require the lowering of the tunnel, so as to give the water above it a depth of twenty-one feet, as required by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899, declar ing that all the work of removing and reconstruct ing bridges and piers, and lowering tunnels nec essary to permit a navigable channel to the depth of twenty-one feet, should be done by the city without expense to the United States. The holding as to the rights of the street railway com pany seems to be founded upon the general prin ciple that though it owned the fee on each side of the river, nevertheless its rights in the bed thereof were subject to the paramount right of naviga tion over the waters of the river, and in support of this general principle the following cases are cited: Weber v. State Harbor, 18 Wall. 57, 66, 21 L. Ed. 799, 802; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 458, 36 L. Ed. 1018, 1044, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 30, 38 L. Ed. 342, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S. 269-276, 41 L. Ed. 996-1002, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 163, 45 L. Ed. 137, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 48; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. People, ail Ill. 103, 72 N. E. 219; Braxon v. Brussler, 64 Ill. 488; People v. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 396, 84 Am. Dec. 351; Sage v. New York, 151 N. Y. 61. 38 L. R. A. 66, 61 Am. St. Rep. 592, 47 N. E. 1006; State v. Parrott, 71 N. C. 311, 17 Am. Rep. 5; State v. Dibble, 49 N. C. (4 Jones L.) 107; Dredich v. Northwestern Union R. Co., 2 Wis. 348, 54 Am. Rep. 399; Parmater v. Gibson, 10 Price, 412; Williams v. Wilcox, 8 Ad. & El. 314; Col chester v. Brook, 7 Q. B. 339. A comparison of this case with that of Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 26 Sup. Ct., 341, mentioned in the pre ceding number of this magazine, will be both in teresting and instructive. COPYRIGHTS (Copyright by Assignee — Notice of Copyright). U. S. Cir. Ct. H. Y. — Two

527

questions of copyright law are decided in Werckmeister v. American Lithographic Co., 142 Fed eral Reporter 827, one of which seems fairly clear, while the other is in conflict with the only case which the court cites upon the question. The suit was for infringement of copyright, and it appeared that the complainant had purchased from a painter the copyright in a certain picture, and had produced photographic reproductions thereof. The plaintiff did not, at any time, own the picture, but merely took a written assignment of the copyright privilege. Under Rev. St. § 4952, authorizing the copyrighting of a paint ing by the author or proprietor, or by the assigns of any such person, it is held that the common law copyright being capable of assignment sepa rately from the painting, the assignee of the copy right privilege was within the statute and en titled to copyright the painting, though it was owned by another. The statute further requires notice of copyright to be given by inserting the same in the several copies of every edition pub lished, on the title page, or on the page immedi ately following if it be a book, of if a map, paint ing, statuary, or model or design, by inscribing upon some visible portion thereof, or the sub stance on which the same shall be mounted. The copies which plaintiff published bore a copy right notice, but no such notice had ever been placed upon the original painting. The court, in the case under consideration, holds that this was not necessary, disagreeing in this respect with the Circuit Court of Appeals which, in the case of Wcrckmeister v. Pierce & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 54, delivered a contrary holding on the same state of facts. In construing the statute the court concludes that in the provision that notice of copyright shall be inscribed "upon some visible portion thereof, or of the substance on which the same shall be mounted " the word "thereof " and the words " the same " do not refer to the words " map, chart," etc., but refer back to the words " the several copies," it is pointed out that there can be no object in placing the notice of copyright upon the thing copy righted, which the public rarely or never sees, and that in the case of a book the notice is not placed upon the original manuscript, nor in the case of a map upon the engraved plate. The purpose of requiring notice of copyright to be put upon the copies is, the court declares, to charge the person owning such copies with notice that his ownership is restricted. But the author of a book or painting, or any other intellectual production in its original form, knows whether he has a copyright on it or not, so that a copy right notice is useless.