Others  are  free  to  copy  the  original.  They  are
not  free  to  copy  the  copy.  .  .  .  The  copy  is
the  personal  reaction  of  an  individual  upon
nature.  Personality  always  contains  something
unique.     It  expresses  its  singularity  even  in

67— Press  Publishing  Co.  v.  Falk,  59  P.  324.
68—188  U.  8.  239,  47  L.  ed.  460.
INFEINGEMENT  AND  THE  REMEDIES  PEOVIDED  413

handwriting  and  a  very  modest  grade  of  art  has
in  it  something  irreducible,  which  is  one  man's
alone.  That  something  he  may  copyright  unless
there  is  a  restriction  in  the  words  of  the  act. ' '

This  subject  is  further  illustrated  by  a  decision  in
which ''^  it  appeared  that  the  London  Times  had
made  a  contract  with  the  Chicago  Tribune  by  which
the  latter  was  given  the  right  to  publish,  in  the
United  States,  such  telegrams  and  editorials  appear-
ing in  the  Times  as  it  might  choose  to  cable  over.
The  Times  "abandoned"  in  favor  of  the  Tribune,  its
copyright  in  such  matter,  in  so  far  as  its  publication
in  the  United  States  was  concerned.    Both  the  Times
and  Tribune  were  copyrighted  daily.     It  was  held       g  jQgg
these  copyrights  would  not  prevent  anyone  reading  Republishing
the  Times,  from  cabUng  the  substance  of  the  matter  °*^^'
copyrighted,  over  to  other  newspapers  in  the  United
States,  for  republication  there.  o  -^Qgg

The  cases  of  Eeade  v.  Conquest^"  and  Boosey  v.  English  deci-
Fairlie "  which,  in  effect,  protected  copyrighted  copying"  ^"^
works,  as  against  works  not  copied  from  the  copy-  uncopyrighted

.    ,        ,  1       ,  T      n  1       •    1  •      ii  IT      works  may  be

righted  works  but  made  irom  material  m  the  public  infringement
domain,  have  not  been  followed  in  the  United  rfahted  ones.
