Copyright is not forfeited where a notice properly affixed has been omitted in later use beyond the control of the copyright proprietor. " If copied afterwards or put upon a new mount the complainant should not suffer," said Judge Coxe in Falk v. Cast in reference to copies from which the notice had been separated. In Bennett v. Carr, in 1899, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Thomas, nonsuited the complainant because he had not deposited a written description, in addition to filing identifying copies, both formalities being required under the old law.
Limited use
and licenseThe principle is especially important regarding works of art that a copyright proprietor may grant specific license for the limited use of his work; and this has many times been upheld by judicial decisions. In the American courts, such cases have usually been settled by preliminary injunction, without further trial, so that most of the cases are unreported in the law digests, as in that of Miles v. American News Co., in 1898, where General Miles obtained a preliminary injunction restraining the distribution by the defendants of " Remington's frontier sketches," including illustrations made for and copyrighted in General Miles' "Personal recollections." In the English case of Nicholls V. Parker, in 1901, it was held that a license to print illustrations in the Graphic did not permit their use in another periodical of the defendant despite the defense of "custom of the trade," which the judge characterized as "ridiculous." In the important case of Green v. Irish Independent, the Court of Appeal held that the newspaper, though acting "in good faith and without knowledge," was guilty of infringement in printing an illustration sent to it as an advertisement which the proprietor had not licensed for such use. Where, in Guggenheim v. Leng, in
