Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/93

 Civil Remedies. 81

the trial, and that the prima facie proof afforded by § 6 (3).

putting in a copy of the work with the author's name

indicated thereon would be rebutted by the defendant showing that the name had been put on solely for the purpose of the litigation. The author's name must be indicated in the usual manner, and that would seem to imply that it must have been put on at or about the time the work or the copy thereof in question was made.

It will be observed that the author's name may be a Author's «o«« nom de plume by which he is commonly known qua '^^^"•'"V^ author. It will not matter that, in private life, he is known by his true name. All that will be necessary will be to call evidence to prove the identity of the plaintiff or his assignor, as the case may be, with the name which is indicated on the work.

Where an author has disposed of his unpublished In case of manuscript by his will, there is a presumption that the '^ork copyright passes with the property in the manuscript (a), published" ^ If, therefore, it is shown that a work was published posthumously, the plaintiff may prove his title either by assignment from the author or from some person who acquired the manuscript under th,e author's testamentary disposition.

Paragraph (b) of the sub-section is applicable when Presumption there is no proof under paragraph (a). If any copy of the i^ favour of work is put in evidence bearing the author's true name, proprietor^^ or the name by which he is commonly known, it will dis- named place any presumj^tion which might otherwise have arisen °^ work, from the putting in evidence of a copy upon which the publisher's or proprietor's name alone appears. In the case therefore of collective works, proof under para- graph (b) is not available when the matter pirated is a signed contribution. It is only available to prove title to matter which is unidentified as regards authorship. A proprietor of a collective work has, however, a copyright in the collection of material as well as in the separate articles, and although he might not be able to sue in respect of infringement of the articles taken separately, he might, if the collection was reproduced, be able to sue in respect of infringement of the copyright in the collection.

��(«) Sect, 17 (2).

�� �