The  dissenting  opinion  appears  the  sounder.  The
majority  view  seems  to  ignore  the  purpose  of  the
statutory  notice,  which  is  to  warn  the  public  against
infringement.    It  would  be  absurd  to  require  sepa-


23a— See  §  895.
24 — Lydiard-Peterson  Co.  v.  Woodman,  204  P.  922;  on  rehearing,
205  F.  900.
NOTICES  OF  COPYRIGHT  347

rate  notices  to  be  put  upon  parts  of  a  work,  if
physically  connected,  merely  because  such  parts  can
be  severed.  Such  a  result  is  not  intended  by  the
copyright  proprietor  nor  is  it  normal.  But  if  a  work
be  so  constructed  that  it  is  issued  with  separated
parts,  with  the  knowledge  .that  these  may,  and  will,
be  used  separately,  each  such  separate  part  may  well
come  into  different  hands,  and  since  each  might  be
copyrighted  separately,  if  the  proprietor  chooses  to
copyright  the  parts  as  an  entirety,  consideration  of
the  practical  purpose  of  notices  of  copyright  would
seem  to  require  that  one  such  notice  be  on  each  part  g  gQ2
of  the  work  issued  separately.  Motion

Under  the  prior  Act,  it  was  held  ^^  that  notice  of  ^^°  ^^
copyright  need  only  appear  at  the  end  of  a  motion
picture  film.    There  appears,  however,  to  have  only
been  one  reel  of  film  in  question  and  it  may  well  be
doubted  whether  the  decision  would  have  been  the         §  993
same  had  there  been  more  than  one  reel.  Title  page.
