The courts are disposed to limit the definition of publication to insure the fullest protection of an author's right. In Werckmeister _v._ Springer Lith. Co. it was further held by Judge Townsend that the printing in an exhibition catalogue of a cut of a painting was for the information of patrons and was not publication. In the same case the defense contended that the sale of an earlier replica of the plaintiff's painting constituted a publication and forfeited copyright, but the court held that the replica was not a copy but was made beforehand to assist in the preparation of the painting afterward copyrighted, and that there was no publication.
In Falk _v._ Gast, in 1893, where the defense claimed that the copyright notice was omitted from published copies, referring to a sample sheet of miniature reproductions sent to dealers for their information and convenience, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Shipman, held that this issue of sample sheets did not constitute publication. This doctrine of limitation had a curious application in Harper _v._ Shoppell, in 1886, in which Judge Wallace, in the U. S. District Court, held, where an electrotyper had sold to a third party an unauthorized electrotype of a copyrighted illustration, that the copyright law was not violated because the illustration had not been printed or published.
The artist-author or the proprietor of an artistic copyright should be most careful to comply with the statutory requirements as to notice and other formalities, as otherwise copyright may be forfeited. Several court decisions indicate that the copyright notice should be placed on the original when exhibited, even if copies are not then reproduced for sale; and as the question is not made quite clear in the new code, it is wise to follow this indication. In the original trial in 1902 of the Werckmeister case, Judge Thomas in the U. S. Circuit Court held that the omission of copyright notice from the exhibited original waived the copyright, but his decision of the case was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court on other grounds as previously stated, and this particular point remains unsettled.
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._ Gast 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, non-suited the complainant because he had not deposited a written description, in addition to filing identifying copies, both formalities being required under the old law.