The  Courts  are  not  concerned  with  the  wisdom  or
lack  of  wisdom  of  the  statutory  requirements  in  this  guh  t  ^tM
connection,  nor  can  they  say  that  that  is  unimportant  compliance,  in
which   Congress   has   prescribed.^^     A   substantial  essSt'iai.
27— Beckford  v.  Hood,  7  Term.  R.  620.
28— See  §8.
29— Section  1.
30— Callaghan  v.  Myers,  128  U.  S.  617,  32  L.  ed.  547;  Mifflin  v.
R.  H.  White  Co.,  190  U.  S.  260,  47  L.  ed.  1040.
31— Thompson  v.  Hubbard,  131  U.  S.  123,  33  L.  ed.  76.
32— Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.  591,  8  L.  ed.  1055.
60


LAW  OF  COPTRIGHT


§148
Copyrights
are  exclusive
in  their
nature.
§149
Nature  of  such
exclusiveness.
compliance,  having  due  regard  to  the  object,  or
apparent  object,  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  is
all  that  is  necessary.^^  Strict  compliance  is  not
requisite  under  the  more  modern  decisions,  although
it  was  under  the  earlier  ones.
Thus  it  will  be  observed  that  copyright  is  not  an
absolute  right,  but  it  is  purely  derivative  from  the
statute,  and  defeasible,  even  after  grant,  to  the
extent  it  is  so  made  defeasible  by  the  statute  under
which  it  is  obtained.  The  effect  of  the  conditions
which  must  be  so  complied  with,  will  be  discussed
in  connection  with  the  sections  of  the  statute  in  which
they  are  found.
