Nelson's

Bureau of Research: A few specimens of inquiries and answers." These copies consist of 122 typewritten pages, with a printed cover and title page, said cover and pages being fastened together in the usual manner in which typewritten documents are fastened. It is explained by the applicants that they publish an encyclopedia, one of the essential features of which is that it is kept up-to-date; that in connection with the published encyclopedia the privilege is offered its subscribers of submitting letters of inquiry upon any subject whatsoever; that to such inquiries careful and elaborate answers are prepared under the supervision of eminent authorities, and these answers are typewritten and copies struck off by means of the mimeograph; that the copies produced in this way are issued for general circulation; and it is in these sheets of answers bound as stated that the publishers desire to register a claim for copyright; and you ask my opinion as to whether or not the register of copyrights has authority, under the copyright act of March 4, 1909, (35 Stat. 1075), to register the same.

The real question is, whether or not, under the copyright law, a book must be printed before a claim for copyright therein can be admitted to registration. If copies of this work were not reproduced for sale, it is conceded that the claim should be registered under section 11 of the act; but inasmuch as numerous copies are struck off for circulation, it is thought, and correctly so I think, that if copyrighted at all, it must be as a publication, and not as a mere manuscript.

By section 5 of said act it is provided:

"That the application for registration shall specify to which of the following classes the work in which copyright is claimed belongs:

"(a) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, directories, gazetteers, and other compilations."

"A collection of sheets of paper or similar material, blank, written or printed, bound together; commonly,

many folded and bound sheets containing continuous printing or writing."

The courts have shown the greatest liberality in interpreting the copyright laws, and have, in favor of authors, extended the word "book" so as to make it include works which do not fall even within this broad definition. In Clayton v. Stone & Hall (2 Paine 382, 391) the court held that a newspaper could not be copyrighted on account of its method of publication, but in the course of its opinion the court said:

"It seems to be well settled in England, that a literary production, to be entitled to the protection of the statute on copyrights, need not be a book in the common and ordinary acceptation of the word-a volume, written or printed, made up of several sheets and bound up together. It may be printed on one sheet, as the words of a song or the music accompanying it. It is true that the English statute of 8 Anne, in the preamble, speaks of books and other writings; but the body of the act speaks only of books, the same as in the act of Congress; and a learned commentator upon American law (2 Kent's Com. 311) seems to think the English decisions on this subject have been. given upon the body of the statute of Anne, without laying any stress upon the words other writings in the preamble." See also Drone on Copyrights, 142, and 9 Cyc. 898.

Clearly, therefore, the work submitted is a book as defined both by lexicographers and the courts, and the claim for copyright therein may be registered unless there is some provision in the act which prohibits it.

By section 9 it is provided:

"That any person entitled thereto by this act may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this act."

"That after copyright has been secured by publication of the work with the notice of copyright as provided in section nine of this act, there shall be promptly deposited in the copyright office or in the mail addressed to the register of

copyrights, Washington, District of Columbia, two complete copies of the best edition thereof then published, which copies, if the work be a book or periodical, shall have been produced in accordance with the manufacturing provisions specified in section fifteen of this act."

*

*

*

*

*

The copyright, therefore, is obtained by publication of the book and the giving of notice of copyright required by the act; but it is suggested that in consequence of the reference in section 12 to the manufacturing provisions in section 15, and the requirements of said section 15, the copyright can not be enforced, and may be subsequently entirely defeated, and the register of copyrights can not issue a certificate of registration in consequence of a failure to deposit in the copyright office two copies printed as required by said section.

Section 15, among other things, provides:

* *

the

* * *

"That of the printed book or periodical specified in section five, subsections (a) and (b) of this act * text of all copies accorded protection under this act shall be printed from type set within the limits of the United States, etc."

The use of the word "printed" in connection with “book” might very well be construed as a recognition that other kinds of books are subject to copyright, but that the provision of this section, in so far as it applies to books, is restricted to printed books.

But, in addition to this, the purpose of section 15 should be taken into consideration in determining whether or not it has the effect of limiting the right of copyright to printed books; and the language of that section, as well as the report of the committee which had the bill in charge, clearly shows that it was inserted solely for the purpose of protecting American labor, and that it was not the design of Congress to thereby, in any respect, restrict the character of works which, under other sections of the act, might be copyrighted. In drafting the bill it was no doubt assumed that books would, ordinarily and probably universally, be printed for circulation; and the purpose was

to require all the printing of books protected under the act to be done as described in said section 15, but it was certainly not intended to prescribe any regulation as to the form in which the book should appear. That is, in the passage of sections 15 and 16, Congress was concerned in where and by whom the work of preparing the books for circulation and sale should be done, and not in the particular method by which the author should impart his ideas to the public. A contrary holding might lead to great uncertainty and confusion. It has been universally held that there is no requirement as to the number of pages on which a work shall appear in order that it may be entitled to the benefit of copyright. If it appear on one or even four pages, then there can be no necessity for a binding; and yet section 15 provides that "the printing of the text and the binding of the said book shall be performed within the limits of the United States," thus implying, if the strict construction suggested be adopted, that the book must not only be printed, but must also be bound before the claim. for copyright in the same can be registered. Of course Congress did not intend to, and did not, introduce such a radical innovation into the copyright law. The meaning of that clause in section 12 which provides that the book "shall have been produced in accordance with the manufacturing provisions of section 15 of this act," is that the book shall not have been produced in violation of that section; and section 15 means that if the book is printed, the printing shall be done as required therein.

I am of the opinion, therefore, that the claim to copyright in the work in question should be registered.

PRESIDENT-POWER TO DETAIL OFFICERS OF THE

ENGINEER CORPS.

The President has the power to detail officers of the Engineer Corps of the Army to act as experts at a hearing involving the granting of a permit to the city and county of San Francisco, to use the Hetch Hetchy Valley, in the Yosemite National Park, for maintaining a water supply for municipal purposes.

Officers of the Engineer Corps of the Army may be ordered to any duty in the line of their profession.

Section 9 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1027) does not operate to either repeal any portion of section 1158 Revised Statutes, or to revoke the implied power there given to the President, to order Army engineers to any duty, nor does it curtail his power under that section, or otherwise, to assign such engineers to any duty.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

May 5, 1910.

SIR: In your note of April 23, 1910, to which I have the honor to respond, you state that

"The Secretary of the Interior has requested the detail of several officers of the Engineer Corps of the Army to consider, from an expert standpoint, certain questions that will arise in a hearing under the order to show cause in the matter of the Hetch Hetchy Valley permit, which is to take place on the 18th of May proximo. It is understood that any findings that may be reached by such board are of an advisory character and are for the information of the President and the Secretary of the Interior."

You refer me to section 9 of the act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 945, 1027), and to section 1158, Revised Statutes, and ask my opinion "whether the operation of the enactment last above cited takes the case out of the operation of the act of March 4, 1909, and to give the authority of law. to the proposed employment of any engineer officers who may be detailed by the President in the operation of section. 1158 of the Revised Statutes."

On May 11, 1908, the former Secretary of the Interior granted to the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., a permit to use what is known as the Hetch Hetchy Valley, in the Yosemite National Park, for the purpose of maintaining a water supply for municipal and other purposes.