New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-28

ent law. The law should name newspapers
and say how they shall be entered.
Tine relative rights of proprietors OF maya
zines and newspapers, and of contributors Vi
special articles, should have the beneht Oh
rule. Does the entire property in eontrlou-
ton pass to the magazine or paper when re-
ccives and publishes it, or only right 10
publish it once Suppose nothing is said' as
generally nothing is, upon this point, winch
party is it who has the right to go through
the files of a magazine aud take out the stories
furnished by one author, for publication IN
single volume-the author of the stories OF
the proprietor of the magazine ms Is hOV
answered by the law. The commissioners
criticise Che English law for giving no RUE as
to extracts and quotations. Ours does not
Is il a breach of copyright, for one pre-
pairing church hymn or reading DOCK Oh
poetry, to select q single poem from an ehtire
copyright collection of the works OF Long
fellow. Bryant or Whittier The courts seem
70 say, No Publishers of collections genef-
ally think it is. The statute should answer.
Compilers would value some more distinct
guide rs to the use they may make OF the
works of their predecessors in the same heid'
IL is impossible to make 3 better dictionary
than the old one, without repeating most OF
the words, in nearly the same arrangement
and with definitions like in substance or to
make better directory than last years, with
ont repeating most OF the names; or an improved
gazetteer, or even cyclOpGdia, without re-
peating titles aud restating information.
How far do condolences and repctitlons IN
such works expose the later writer to an
Injunction at the suit of the earlier one
The condition OF law reports under the copy
right law is anomalous. Judges and report
ers are paid salaries to write opinions and to
edit and publish them. Why are not these
volumes open to any one for copying Tax
payers have paid once for the labor why
should a monopoly of publication be granted
Years ago, when Peters published cOndcnsa-
ton of Wheaton's Supreme Court Reports, that
court ndjudged that the opinions of the
judges were public property, but that the re-
porter could copyright his own wOrk-his head
notes aud narratives of the cases. This, we
think. was before the day of reporters 5ala-
rics. Now the reporter is often an officer PAID
By the State for his writing. The COnstltu-
ton of this State declares that all judicial de
cisous shall be free for publication by any
person. Yet volume after volume appears with
a claim Of copyrigh, stamped behind the title.
Let the law define the limits of this claim.
The effect of publishing successive editions,
and copyrighting EACH deserves calculation.
Years after the appearance of his original
treatise, the author prepares second edition,
which contains additions. He copyrights
the new edition; and when the original copy
right expires he omits to renew 1t, suppos'
ing that the entry of the second edition pro-
tects his old work as well as his new. But
according to the strict tenor of the copy
right law, his original work becomes public
property when its term expires. Any one
may reprint from that. To save, in the new
work, the parts which were taken from the
old, the author should seasonably renew the
old copyright. Yet hundreds of valuable
books stand, to-day, unsheltered by this pre-
caution. Is it needed one The law would
do well to declare.