S-88
No. 26
CORRESPONDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING REPRINT MATERIAL
Two related problems involving reprint material arise quite frequently.
In both cases it is clear that the work contains material that has been published or copyrighted previously. Likewise, in both cases, the copyright notice contains only the later date of publication of this edition, and does not include any date covering the earlier material. The year date appearing in the notice is acre than one year later than the year in which copyright in the earlier material was secured.
In the first situation, there is a question as to whether there is sufficient new matter to support a new registration, and we must write to find this out. It has sometimes been our practice merely to pose the question, without explaining the possible consequences--that unless there is new matter, registration cannot be made and copyright has doubtless been lost. In this case, and in all cases where the copyright status of a work hinges on an applicant's answer to our question, an explanation of the possible consequences should be included in our letter.
In the second situation, it is clear that there is no new matter, and that the work is a mere reprint. In many of our rejection letters, we have gone no further than to explain that registration must be refused because there is not enough new matter to support a new entry. If this is true, however, the copyright mq have been 10Bt by use of a postdated notice. We wUl point this out to the applicant to avoid telling him only halt of the story and leaving him with a wrong impression as to future publications. This should be pointed out only as a possibility or as a general proposition; we cannot decide this question in an individual case.
These problems usually arise with respect to the year date. However, it should be noted that the same situation can arise when the name in the copyright notice is changed on a reprint without first recording the assignment.
