16 ` FEDERAL nmronrnn. »
‘ oHice of the librarian of congress, at Washington," which are certainly
a part of the notice. Without discussing the question as to the
natural rights of authors in their literary productions, and whether
they have any 'such rights in this country aside from our copy-
right laws, it is enough to say that the bill in this case shows that
complainants' work has been published and put in circulation; that
be has taken no means to protect the same except by the steps
shown in his bill to obtain and secure a copyright, and, since the de-
cision of the supreme court ofthe United States in Wheaton v. Peters,
8 Pet. 591, it has been the recognized rule in this class of cases that
a party must bring himself strictly within the terms of the statute in
regard to copyright in order to protect his property in case of publi-
cation. Argument seems hardly necessary to show that the defend-
ant in this case has not complied with the statute in this regard. He
has not given either of the forms of notice which the statute specific-
· ally requires him to give in order to be entitled to bring a suit for
` the protection of his alleged copyright. If an author or proprietor of
a book or literary work can change the formula prescribed bythe
statute for his notice of copyright to the public, by omitting the
words left out of this notice, he may omit other words, or adopt an
entirely diiferent form, or may change the location of the notice. He
may think that the»title-page, or the page immediately following, is
not as good a place to print the notice as some other place in the
book, and may therefore insist that he has a right to exercise his
own judgment as to where he will print his notice, as well as the form
in which it shall be printed. Anauthor or proprietor of a work has
no right to say, in effect, that any part of the prescribed notice is im-
material, and may be omitted. He takes his copyright under the
law, only by giving the notice, and the entire notice, which the stat-
ute provides; and the statute expressly declares that he shall not.
maintain an action unless he has complied with this condition.
Hence I think the bill fails to show a valid copyright in complainant,
and the demurrer must be sustained, and the bill dismissed.
The only case cited by the complainant in support of his bill is.
,Myers v. Callaghan, 10 Biss. 139; S. O. 5 Fed. Rep. 726. In that
case the latelearned circuit judge of this circuit held that where the-
notice of copyright stated the copyright to have been entered in 1866,
when in fact it was not entered until 1867, did not defeat the copy-
right, because the only effect of the mistake as to date was to abridge-
`the life of the copyright one year, and no possible damage could ac-
crue to-the public, or to any other person, by reason of- such mistake.
That case is clearly distinguishable from this, and does not in any
way, as it seems to me, control the questions here made.