554 FEDERAL REPORTER. �under the act of February 3, 1831, (4 U. S. St. at Large, 436.) The act of 1881 is confinee!, by its terms, to the following matters, viz., a book, map, chart, musical composition, print, eut, or engraving. The plaintiff in his bill designates the matter in question as an en- graving or chart. Morris himself, who took out the copyright, calls it a chart. It is not possible to hold such an article to be a chart, within the meaning of the act of 1831. The word "chart," used in that statute, refers to a form of map. This card is no map. Neither is it a print, eut, engraving, or book, within the meaning of the stat- ute. True, it bas lithographie work upon it, and also words and sentences; but it has none of the characteristics of a work of art, or of a literary production. It is an advertisment, and nothing more. Aside from its function as an advertisement of the Morris paints, it has no value. In my opinion, it is neither chart, engraving, nor book, and could not be the subject of a copyright under the provis- ions of the act of 1831. �The case of Grace v. Newman, L. K. 19 Eq. 623, has been cited as authority in support of the proposition that such a card can be copy- righted. In that case the matter was a book, containing sketches of monumental designs, which was held by the court to have a value as a book of reference. Upon this ground it was distinguished from the matter involved in Corbett v. Woodward, L. E. 14 Eq. 407, where a simple catalogue of articles offered for sale was under considera- tion. The card under consideration here in character approaches closely to the matter held in Corbett v. Woodward not to be the sub- ject of a copyright. �Bat Bupposing the plaintiff to have acquired a copyright in the Morris card, it would stUl be impossible for him to recover, for the reason that the defendant's card is no infringement upon such a right. What the copyright laws secure is the exclusive right to make and sell copies of the copyrighted matter. The defendant has issued a card to which are attached square bits of paper of varions colors. The colors on these squares are different from the colors upon the Morris card. The words and sentences that appear on the plaintiff's card do not appear on the defendant's card. AU the information con- veyed by the defendant's card is that the accompanying colors can be purchased of the defendant. The card contains no allusion whatever to the Morris paints, and, in form and subject-matter, is wholly un- like the Morris card. One card is an advertisement of certain paints sold by one person. The other is an advertisement of certain other paints sold by another person. No person by reading or seeiug the ��� �
