from a non-resident alien author. The publication in order to be such as will amount (in the absence of the copyright) to a dedication, must be a publication of the thing itself, and not the publication of something else that resembles it; so that the author of a literary work does not lose his common-law right of property in it before its publication, by previously publishing an abridgment of it." 2 The distribution, by a sculptor amongst his friends, of copies of a plaster cast taken from the bust of a statue is not a publication of the statue itself. The exhibition of the picture itself, for the purpose of obtaining subscribers to an engraving of it, is not a publication of the picture. The private circulation among friends, of lithographic impressions or drawings, is not a publication of the drawings themselves." Nor is the publication of an engraving of a picture in a magazine, with an article describing the picture, a publication of the picture itself." The case of Boucicault v. Delafield," where the plaintiff prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from producing a drama ("The Colleen Bawn ") written by the plaintiff, and, as it appeared on the hearing of the case, represented by the plaintiff at The property which an author has in his unpublished ideas embodied in a tangible shape being independent of statute, it should seem that an alien friend might prevent the unauthorized publication here of any of his unpublished works (Shortt, L. L. 36). 2 Prince Albert v. Strange, 5 De G. & S. 652; 1 Mac. & G. 25; 13 Jur. 45, 109, 507. * Turner v. Robinson, 10 Jr. Ch. Rep. 134. • Id. Prince Albert v. Strange, ubi supra. • Turner v. Robinson, 10 Jr. Ch. Rep. 121, 516. ' 1 H. & M. 597; 9 L. T. N. S. 709; 33 L. J.; 38 Ch. This was, however, under and by virtue of the statute. New York prior to its being represented in England, where the vice-chancellor refused to grant the injunction and dismissed the bill with costs, was decided upon statutory grounds, and will be considered hereafter.' 2 The principle of literary accessions treated in the: chapter on Originality is also applicable to manuscripts. So, where one contracts for hire and reward. to write certain portions of a book to be published by another, equity will not aid him by injunction to pre-. vent his portion of the work being printed and published in an altered or mutilated form. Wood, V. C. intimated an opinion, though the point did not arise in the case before him, that, unless there be a special contract, either express or implied, reserving to the 'The vice-chancellor being of opinion that the words of the 19th section of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, took away whatever rights. the plaintiff might otherwise have had. If he had first represented his drama here, he would have been entitled to the provisions of the dramatic copyright act. Then 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, was passed, enabling her majesty to make arrangements conferring on other nations the privileges accorded to all people who first publish their works here. If the plaintiff had this sort of double right, it was the very thing which the 7 & 8. Vict. c. 12, was intended to extinguish. The statute says in effect (sect. 19) that "if any person, British subject or not, chooses to deprive this country of the advantage of the first representation of his work, then he may get the benefit of copyright, if he can, under the arrangement which may have been come to pursuant to 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, between this country and the country which he so favors with his representation; but if he chooses to publish his performance in a country which has not entered into any treaty or made any such arrangement with regard to copyright, then this country has nothing more to say to him; he must be taken to have elected under which of the two statutes with respect to copyright he wishes to come, by performing his work in one country in-. stead of the other; and he is thereby excluded from all ad‹.. vantage of publishing in the other" (Shortt, L. L. 35). 2 Ante * Cox v. Cox, 11 Hare, 118. author a qualified copyright, the purchaser of a manuscript is at liberty to alter and deal with it as he thinks proper. The court is not moved in such a case by the possible effects of the alterations as affecting the writer's reputation.' But it seems that if a publisher puts forth an inaccurate edition of an author's work, purporting to be executed by him, the author may maintain an action against the publisher for injury to his reputation, even where the publisher is the owner of the copyright. 3 2 193. I. As to the injury sustained by the author from the trespass upon his manuscripts or unpublished works, until the case of Prince Albert v. Strange, it seemed to be settled that such injury would consist in the loss of his right or the frustration of his intention to first publish himself, and of his prospective profits thereof, to arise from such publication, and that no measure of damages could be considered looking to his own personal feelings of sensitiveness, or difference, or reputation. But that case appears to hold exactly the reverse, and as going further than its predecessors, may be looked upon as leading upon the subject. A manuscript going through the press is as we shall see at the owner's risk, and unless the printers. 5 1 Archbold v. Sweet, 1 M. & Rob. 162; S. C. & P. 219. 2 Id. 3 4 Bartlett v. Chittenden, 4 McLean, 301. In Cox v. Cox, 2 Hare. 110. "The possible effect on reputation," said Wood, V. C., "unless connected with property, is not a ground for coming to this court, though it may be an ingredient for the court to consider, when the question of a right of property also arises." But see Archbold v. Sweet, 1 M. & Rob. 162 ; post Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 437. Mawman v. Gillett, 2 Taunt. 325, and see post chapter on Contracts concerning Literary Property. 5 expressly insure it, they would not be liable in damages for its loss, to the author. It might be a damage to an author, also to have his art or method of trade disclosed as we have seen,' but the publication of his private opinions, sentiments or doings, even though by such disclosures he were rendered unpopular in certain quarters, or were defeated in an election or choice to a position of emolument or influence, would probably be no ground for an action of damages. The question as to damage by such publication will be found to arise mainly in the case of letters of persons living, or of deceased persons, in the hands of their executors, and others. As to the manuscripts of deceased persons in other hands than those of the executors, it has been held in England that a right on their (the executors,) part to restrain a publication of such manuscripts can only depend upon whether the estate will suffer damage by such publication. The right to prevent such publication is no part of the assets in the executor's hands. This question, therefore, will be treated as incidental to our examination of the general rules of law applicable to letters and correspondence. 194. The most difficult question with regard to the property and proprietorship of literary composition embodied in manuscripts, arises in the case of those manuscripts which, from their nature, pass from one ownership and possession to another, and may be said, at times, to have more than one owner: ¿e., letters. 1 Bartlett v. Chittenden, 4 McLean, 300. Stevens v. Sherwood, cited Maugham L. Prop. 139. • Id. 140. Gerard Vassius,' remarking on the surprising discovery of the art of letter-writing, a phenomenon which 1 De Quatuor Artibus Popularibus, iii. 1. 2 Next to the invention of printing, the invention of paper has done most toward educating and enlightening the world. The earliest races of men probably used to plant groves and set up pillars or heaps of stones, or to institute games or festivals to recall or perpetuate the memory of events. The composition and singing of historical songs was a still more popular way of accomplishing the purpose (Tac. Mor. Germ. 2). Small cords, sometimes variously colored and regularly knotted, were used by the Chinese in ancient times before the reign of Fo-hi, and by the Peruvians (Quipos) at a later period; notched or marked sticks were also employed. Probably the next step in the communication of thought, was the use of pictorial representation. When Cortez had his first. interview with the Aztec chiefs he found that news of his arrival on the coast had already been conveyed to them by means of pictures of ships, strangers, horses, and artillery. Nor could they have more rapidly comprehended the power, mission, and intentions of the Spaniards, by means of language itself. The probability is that, next to pictures came hieroglyphical characters, which, without doubt, originally were abbreviations of pictures, each character meaning a word, or perhaps more than one. The Hebrew alphabet, for instance, betrays marks of this origin. The first letter, aleph, signifies an ox, and the picture of the head and horns of that animal very probably suggested its form. A zigzag line is a natural symbol for water as expressing undulation-and the Hebrew letter M, pronounced mem, is the word for water. The wav ing line is also the symbol of aquarius in the zodiac. So the Arabic numerals were originally the simple form of marks; a single stroke or mark meaning the digit one; two marks, forming a right angle, the digit two; a second downward stroke, attached to the right angle, the digit three, and so on And so, too, the Chinese characters disclose in their formation their natural derivation from the like simple sources. The more these symbols were employed, of course, the greater the tendency to abbreviate them; and when, from these initiative methods, the art emerged, from the historical and representative system, to the employment of mere marks and dots to express ideas or letters, a great step had been taken, and the time had come for a material to present itself. At first these materials were of so rude a description as to render the appli |