Thе case stated shows that between January, 1878, and September, 1887, the petitioner Rider published a series of twenty pamphlets, which he called “ Rhode Island Historical Tracts.” These tracts consisted of short historical treatises, by various writers, and related, in a genеral way, to Rhode Island history. Subscriptions were solicited and taken by said Rider, with printed and verbal statements that the edition of eaсh tract to be published was limited to two hundred and fifty copies, and that the same would not be reprinted, whereby the value of said traсts was greatly enhanced. All said tracts, except No. 16, were copyrighted. September 27, 1887, Rider made an assignment of all his proрerty to Augustus S. Miller, for the benefit of creditors. At that time he held the copyrights as above stated. Rider and Miller now concur, in a casе stated, according to our statute, in asking the court the following questions :
1. What rights, if any, had said Rider in and to said copyrights at the time of the mаking of said assignment ?
2. Was there anything in said copyrights of value to pass to said assignee ?
3. Did the property of said Rider in and to said cоpyrights pass to the assignee under the general assignment ?
4. Has the assignee the right to sell said copyrights, if in his *272 possession, so as to authоrize the purchaser thereof to publish said tracts ?
A copyright gives to the owner the sole right to print, publish, and vend copies of a written composition. It is the grant of an • exclusive privilege by the government, for the purpose of protecting and encouraging, like a patent, the product of mental effort. It secures to the author the fruit of his toil, or enables him to dispose of it, with his incidental rights, to a publisher, who thus becomes the proprietor, so called in the statute, Rev. Stat. U. S. 1875, § 4952, p. 966, and as such entitled to protection in the venture of publication. It often, therefore, and perhaps most frequently, happens that the copyright is in the name of thе proprietor. He holds it as the representative of property; the badge of title and of beneficial right. He may enforce his right against all wrongdoers, but as between himself and the author, or others who may have intei-ests, he holds this species of propеrty, just as he would hold any other property, subject to contract obligations. This principle is recognized in the case of
Pulte
v. Derby,
The cases most nearly in point are those where a book is advertised to -be sold only by subscription. In Henry Bill Publishing Co. v. Smythe, 27 Federal Repоrter, 914, the complainant published Blaine’s “ Twenty Years in Congress,” to be sold only by subscription to single buyers; The defendant surreptitiously procured a few copies, which he' offered for sale in his bookstore, and the sale was enjoined. See, also, Clemens v. Estes, supra. If a publisher has thе right to enjoin a sale made in violation of the terms of his agreement with his customers, when those terms are known, there must be a corresponding duty on his part to conform to the agreement; and hence it follows that he, too, may be restrained from violating it. In the cаse before us, subscriptions for the editions were obtained upon the inducement and representation that the tracts would not be reprinted. The publisher, by his own contract, and in consideration of immediate sales, limited his right and privilege under the copyright. Conformаbly to the contract, he could not himself reprint the tracts; nor can his assignee, for the latter takes no greater right under the assignmеnt than the assignor had when he made it. While the copyright still exists for protection, it has been stripped of its value as property.
As to the third and fourth questions. In Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. U. S. 528, it was held that a copyright was not subject to sale on execution, but it could be reached by a creditor’s bill. The court doubted, hоwever, whether a transfer by sale under a decree *274 would so pass the title as to protect a purchaser, unless by a cоnveyance in conformity with the statute. We do not think it is necessary to pass upon these questions, inasmuch as, on the grounds we have аbove stated, the assignee can have but a naked, legal title, if he has any. Our reply to the several questions is, that Rider’s right in the copyright was subject to his agreement with his subscribers not to publish more than two hundred and fifty copies of each of said tracts; that, having done this, thе copyright has nothing in it of value to pass to his assignee; that, whether the property of said Rider in said copyright has passed under the assignment or not, the assignee has not the right to sell said copyright so as to authorize the purchaser thereof to publish said tracts.