We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
PUBLICATION
505
remained as well in the credit agency, it was held that there was a publication.30
30 Jewelers Mercantile Agency v. Jewelers (1898), 155 N. Y. 241; 49 N. E. 872. If a book be put within reach of the general public so that all may have access to it, no matter what limitations be placed upon the use of it by the individual subscriber or lessee, it is published, and what is known as the common-law copyright or right of first publication is gone.
Ladd v. Oxnard (1896), 75 Fed. (C. C.) 703. Where a book is issued to subscribers thereof and where there is no limitation upon the number of persons to whom the book may be issued, there is a “publication” although the books are not sold and a number of restrictions are placed upon their use.
Larrowe-Loisette v. O’Laughlin (1898), 88 Fed. (C. C.) 896. The issuance of a book to all who subscribe for a course of instruction in connection with the book constitutes a publication thereof.
For cases where the placing of a work in a public office was held to be a publication, see:
Wright v. Eisle (1903), 86 A. D. (N. Y.) 356; 83 N. Y. Supp. 887, where the filing of plans and specifications with a public de
partment was held to be publication.
Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 111. 475; where the filing of a manuscript map was held a publication.
Vernon Abstr. Co. v. Waggoner Title Co. (1908), 107 S. W. (Tex.) 919; where it was held a publication to furnish abstracts of title to owners of property.
D’Ole v. Kansas City Star (1899), 94 Fed. (C. C.) 840. An author leaving copies of a book in a public place or giving them away “publishes.”
See also: Kiernan v. Man. Tel. Co. (1876), 50 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 194.
But see: Stecher v. Dunstan (1916), 233 Fed. (D. C.) 601; where the sending of samples was held not to constitute publication, and McDermott v. Bd. of Trade (1906), 146 Fed. (C. C. A.) 961, and Falk v. Gast (1893), 54 Fed. (C. C. A.) 890.
As to the publication of a painting see: Pierce v. Werckmeister (1896), 72 Fed. (C. C. A.) 54, rev. (1894), 63 Fed. (C. C.) 445, and Am. Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907), 207 U. S. 284; 28 Sup. Ct. 72; Werckmeister