93— Snow  V.  Mast,  65  F.  995.
340


LAW  OF  COPYEIGHT


§874

Substantial,
not  exact
compliance,
essential.
§875
Test  as  to
sufficiency
of  notices.
tains  all  the  essential  elements,  will  not  invalidate
it  but  will  be  treated  as  surplusage."*

"Careful"  compliance  with  the  Section,  "in  sub-
stance," is  essential."^"  The  object  of  the  inscription
is  to  give  notice  of  the  copyright  to  the  public,  and
when  the  letter  of  the  law  is  not  violated  by  the  form
of  notice  adopted,  and  the  object  of  the  statute
accomplished,  that  is  enough."*

The  test  as  to  notices,  as  laid  down  by  the  Su-
preme Court,  may  be  found  in  the  following
language : "®

"It  is  incorrect  to  say  that  any  form  of  notice
is  good  which  calls  attention  to  the  person  of
whom  inquiry  can  be  made  and  information  ob-
tained, since  the  right  being  purely  statutory
the  public  may  justly  demand  that  the  person
claiming  a  monopoly  of  publication  shall  pursue
in  substance,  at  least,  the  statutory  method  of
securing  it.  Thompson  v.  Hubbard,  131  U.  S.
123.  In  determining  whether  a  notice  of  copy-
right is  misleading  we  are  not  bound  to  look
beyond  the  face  of  the  notice  and  inquire
whether  under  the  facts  of  the  particular  case,
it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  an  intelligent  person
could  actually  have  been  misled."

Substantial  compliance  with  the  Act  in  good  faith
is  all  that  is  necessary ,"''  subject  to  an  inclusion  of
essential  words.  Thus  1889,  Copyrighted  by  B.  J.
