The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-10-21

dence, to defeat Bourclcaus copyright II WAS made by
MANI "a ands. 70 su. WHICH tne OH, Q, com
author TO the exclusive enjoyment OF his own work and
should certainly hesitate before should upon that an
throw the copyright OF Bourcaut But the answer does
mol sci forth any such agreement as the respondent a.
ieges II states that Bourcicault was in the
employment OF stewart az q performer and
stage manager, and verbally agreed to write
pay representing life on the Miss ssppi, and
that Il should be performed at Stewards theatre as long
as II should continue to draw good audiences BY this
agreement Stewart acquired right interest In the
pay 70 Dc written except the privilege Of having IL per
formed at his theatre. All other rights retained by
the author Suppose instead OF this being agreement
TO write play and that II should be performed al that
canlt had made this agreement performance
would be merely license for Its repres entaton par
existence cannot strengthen the right Stewart a
give him greater claim than he would have had the
drama had previously bten written. II Is quite clear
that Bourccaut and not Stewart was the proper person
to take out the copyright, which extends TO the whole
United States Stewart was not even an assignee for any
portion of the United States but at most icensee for
particular theatre The sixth objection Is 70 the right
Of Roberts TO maintain this suit assignee u rented
on two grounds: that the instrument relied upon 10
license and not IN assignment But the instrument
itself in terms aSgus" the right therein named TO Ro.
berts, and think that the parties Intended should
right Of that Ss
right Of representation that too for limited Time
and not for the whole territory Of the Uuited States
The assignment is Of the exclusive right Of act
ing and representation In all places throughout
the United States, excepting the cities OF Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, Mobile and
New Orleans for the term or year Whatever force
this objection might have at law II cannot prevail In
equity The statute Of 1884 sanctions assignments of
copyrights, by prescribing the instrument by which they
are to be made and mode Of recording them II does
not say what interest may be assigned. But there
sufficient reason for preventing the author from convey
ing distinct portion OF his right. Divsbl!ty well
as &sgnabty enhances the value OF his property
may find purchaser able and willing pay for part
but not for the whole OF his copyright the excl ive
right of acting and representing distinct from that OF
printing and publishing created indeed by statute
which superadds II TO those pre- existing rights there
Ia good why 1t should not be assgnable and
that too, for a limited time.
The respondent is mere wrong doer who has Invaded
this copyright and intends further invade g. within
the time and territory which the author for valuable
consideration has transferred TO the complainant 1t
quite clear that this copyright being nfringed and in
danger OF further violation by person who has color
OF right, the true owner ought TO have remedy But
Ia sad that Bourccault ought 10 be the complainant at
least join with Roberts Why soG His interest has not
been invaded endangered the joinder Of
Boarccault In any way affect the defendant He not ia
danger Of suffering from another Injunction upon the suit
OF Bourccanlt To require him, then be joined with
Roberts would be idle and nugatory act bene icia to
one and such acts Courts OF Equity not require
There no good reason why the Injunction prayed for
should not be grant the application Of Roberts alone
Temporary injunction granted.