represented as being the complete series of lectures.1 An author who has parted with or lost his copyright has no right to regulate the manner in which his work may be published, provided that there is no misrepresentation causing injury to the author's name.2 In one case, however, the defendants were restrained from a similar proceeding on the ground of unfair trading. They bought second-hand school books published by the plaintiff, and rebound them so as to have the exact appearance of the plaintiff's books when new. It was held that they were entitled to do this without infringing any right of the plaintiff in their copyright book; but it was also held that it was not fair trading to sell the rebound books without sufficient notice that they were rebound. If there have been several editions of a book, the copyright in the first of which only has expired, the author may restrain a publisher from reprinting and publishing the first edition so as to lead the public to believe that it is a later edition still copyright.* The owner of a series of novels, published in two editions, cannot prevent a third person buying a large quantity of the sixth edition and binding them so as to somewhat resemble the dearer edition.5 When the "Encyclopædia Britannica" was published, only a few of the articles were copyright in America. It was held that it was permissible for an American publisher to reprint the whole work so far as not copyright, and to substitute new articles for the copyright articles, and so long as there was no attempt to defraud the public to publish it as the "Encyclopædia Britannica" so revised." SECTION II. UNPUBLISHED WORK. Unpublished work is protected from interference by the common law of England, which was brought to and adopted 1 Drummond v. Altemus (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 338. 2 Kipling v. Fenno (1900), 106 Fed. Rep., 692. 3 Doan v. American Book Co. (1901), 105 Fed. Rep., 772. 4 Merriam v. Famous Shoe (1891), 47 Fed. Rep., 411; Merriam v. Texas Siftings (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 944. 5 Dodd v. Smith (1891), 144 Pa., 340. 6 Black v. Ehrich (1891), 44 Fed. Rep., 793. by the United States.1 When the common law is asserted one must look to the law of the State in which the controversy originated, since although the common law of England was adopted, it was adopted only so far as its principles were suited to the conditions of the colonies at the time, and some States have incorporated with their laws more and some less. The rights at common law in unpublished work were not abrogated by Acts of Congress establishing copyright in published work. A The author of an unfinished work has the right at common law to prevent any one from making any unauthorised use of his work. The author may without publishing make a communication of the contents of his work to a limited number,' and he may prescribe to them what conditions he pleases.5 play or song is not published by performance nor a lecture by delivery." A work of art is probably published by public exhibition, but not by a private view. A spectator of an unpublished play is not entitled to reproduce substantial parts of it even from memory. Similarly with a musical work or lecture. An alien author has an equal right with a citizen of the United States to sue at common law for interference with his manuscript. A statutory remedy is given for the unauthorised printing or publishing of any manuscript. The offender is liable "for all damages occasioned by such injury." 10 This statutory remedy neither destroys nor limits the common law 1 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Little v. Hall (1855), 18 How., 165; Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M'L., 301; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N.Y., 532. 2 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Jones v. Thoms (1843), 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 408; French v. Maguire (1878), 55 How. (N.Y.) Pr.. 471; Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How., 179; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208; Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458. 3 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; Goldmark v. Kreling (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 349; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N.Y., 220; 28 Chic. Leg. News, 49. 4 See p. 262, supra. 5 Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537. 6 See p. 263, supra. 7 Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How. Pr., 179. 8 Tompkins v. Halleck (1882), 133 Mass., 32; overruling Keene v. Kimball (1860), 16 Gray, 549; see French v. Maguire (1878), 55 How. (N.Y.) Pr., 471; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208. • Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N.Y., 532. 10 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 9, amending Revised Statutes, 4967. right.1 No new right is secured. The practical result is that an alternative remedy in the Federal tribunals is provided where the parties are subjects of the same State. The plaintiff may proceed either in the State Court or the the Federal Court.3 Manuscript under this section is limited to the meaning of a written document. It does not include a picture.* 1 Press v. Munroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196. 3 Ibid. Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537. |