The Washington herald., 1916-01-16
Fictitious "HeIen and Warren"
Stories Exposed by London Author

orally. no copyright in a title OF q
name. but there is a certain property
in title which is acquired by user.
and IL that property Is infringeo. as
suggested from the paragraph quoted.
there il no doubt that in Great Britain
IL would be possible TO stop the use
Of the title by another party. and the
person to stop the use Of the title
would be the original writer of the
stories, because the ground OF sction
lies in the fact that the second su-
thor is placing before the public work
under known title with q view 10 IT'S
being taken as the work Of the origi-
nal writer The original writer. there
fore. is damnihed and not necessarily
the owner of the copyright az all: GER
tainly not in this special case. where
the owner of the copyright 10 seeking
to damnify the original author.
Attempt 10 Deceive Public.
Apart from the question Of title. sp-
parently under the copyright law IN the
United States II would be impossible 20
succeed in an action where this kind OF
piracy has taken place. II IL doubtful
IL success would be possible in the Eng
lish courts. The mere taking OF an su-
thor's characters and continuing the
story of their lives alone might be in
sufficient for success, but II, IN addition,
there was any attempt 70 deceive the
public into believing that the new stories
were the work Of the original writer. II
IL possible. In the English courts, that
there would be a remedy both In respect
Of a proprietary right in the title and
also on the ground of libel IN tmpuung
TO an author work which he hso not
written. There is good old legal
proverb which says mo wrong without
a remedy" and certainly the original
=g.4aT xITO ~
worth while as a matter OF principle 20
have carried an action through IN oroer
to discover the remedy.
In America and In England the author
might have been unsuccessful. In a coun-
try like France. where such full pro
lection is given to authors, and where
there Is such sympathetic feeling with
regard to the value OF an authors rights.
IL woeid be almost certain that the
original writer would have succeeded IN
an action
A Surprising Statement.
One or two articles on the case are
to hand. II Is astonishing 20 see the
following statement in the Bulletin Of
the Authors League OF America: AS
the copyright in the original series vests
in the publisher. and as II Is the pub
Usher who has by business scumen and
advertising, created the demand for the
work II would be a difficult point 10
establish the authors undoubted moral
right to the exclusive use Of the char
acters she has created
Surely this statement is all wrong
There is a confusion between cause and
effect Hesrsts organization did not en-
ploy Miss Mabel Herbert Urner in order
to advertise her stories; il employed Miss
Mabel Herbert Urner in order to popu-
larize the magazine. Editors are not i'm
bued with these philanthropic principles
and il is absurd to say that Il Is the
acumen Of the publisher which has ere
ated the demand for Miss UrEer's stories.
II these stories were not calculated TO
make the magazine popular. Miss Urner
would have been dropped long time
ago.
We regret that the legal point has not
been tested. Putting, however. the legal
question aside what can be thought n
the Hearst organization which adopts
these methods? and. with greater enphs
sis, what can be thought OF the author
who descends TO the course Of taking
another authors characters in order per
chance TO curry favor with the Hearst
organization and to obtain a financial re
ward? II would be Interesting TO have
the name of the author, but we under
stand that the further stories published
| by the Hearst organization have been
produced anonymously. II Is not sur
Drisfnr