It may also be emphasized here that the notice of copyright can be omitted only from foreign-made copies and must be included in the American-made edition. The American publisher desiring to reprint a book published abroad in the English language within sixty days after publication, without consent of the copyright proprietor, must therefore assure himself, by inquiry from the Copyright Office, whether the work has been registered _ad interim_. The printing of an American copyright notice on the foreign edition in anticipation of the publication of an American-made edition and the deposit of copies thereof within the statutory requirements is a questionable practice, as a failure to publish American-made copies in the United States, because of defective publishing arrangements or a printers' or binders' strike, would make such notice a false notice of copyright. The copyright term in the case of such foreign work in the English language dates, it would seem, from the date of publication abroad rather than from the date of publication of the American-made edition; but this would be of importance only toward the expiration of the original term and in connection with the renewal term.
_Ad interim_ protection seems to be confined exclusively to a book as such, and therefore does not apply to articles in periodicals.
{ Sidenote: American authors not thus protected}
It should be noted that an American author publishing his work abroad is not benefited by either of these provisions respecting foreign works. The provision regarding works in other languages is specifically confined to a work of foreign origin, that is, not by an American author; and he gains nothing, if his work is in English, from _ad interim_ protection. Thus an American author publishing his work first in German in Berlin, must copyright and deposit an American-made edition of his German text in this country to obtain American protection, without which his work in German could be imported into this country without his consent, and an independent translation of his text into English and its publication in America could not be prevented.
{ Sidenote: Exact conformity required in formalities}
In view of the exact prescription of the method of securing copyright, unless the statute is precisely complied with the copyright is not valid. Said Judge Sawyer, in 1875, in Parkinson _v._ Laselle: "There is no possible room for construction here. The statute says no right shall attach until these acts have been performed; and the court cannot say, in the face of this express negative provision, that a right shall attach unless they are performed. Until the performance as prescribed, there is no right acquired under the statute that can be violated." And in the case of the play "Shaughraun," Boucicault _v._ Hart, in 1875, Justice Hunt held, as regards copyrights in general: "Two acts are by the statute made necessary to be performed, and we can no more take it upon ourselves to say that the latter is not an indispensable requisite to a copyright than we can say it of the former." The Supreme Court laid down this general doctrine in Wheaton _v._ Peters, in reference to the statutes of 1790 and 1802, and the later statutes are most explicit on this point. In the same case of Wheaton _v_. Peters, Justice McLean, in delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, held that while the right "accrues," so that it may be protected in chancery, on compliance with the first requirement of the prescribed process, it must be perfected by complying with the other requisites before a suit at law for violation of copyright can be maintained.
