The Copyright Office Rules and Regulations say specifically: "(10) 'Adaptations' and 'arrangements' may be registered as 'new works' under the provisions of section 6. Mere transpositions into different keys are not expressly provided for in the copyright act; but if published with copyright notice and copies are deposited with application, registration will be made." {Sidenote: Transposition} In Hein _v._ Harris in 1910, the U. S. Circuit Court awarded damages where the chorus of a song proved on transposition into the key of the copyright song to be practically a copy of the melody. {Sidenote: Works in the public domain} It is specifically provided (sec. 6) that "adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations ... or other versions of works in the public domain, ... shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright," and in the case of such versions copyright inheres in the dramatizer, adaptor or maker of a version, as in the case of a translator of a book, in the public domain. Thus a dramatic or musical work in the public domain may be dramatized or adapted freely and any individual dramatization or adaptation may be copyrighted by the dramatizer or adaptor, but he cannot prevent other dramatization or adaptation of the same work. {Sidenote: Dramatization right protected by courts} The American courts have fully upheld the control over dramatization under the right "to dramatize" specifically given in the law of 1891 and preserved under the new code. In 1895 in Harper _v._ Ranous, Judge Lacombe, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, enjoined a play, "Trilby," on the ground that the drama "presents characters, plot, incidents, dramatic situations and dialogue appropriated from Du Maurier's copyrighted novel," while denying protection against the mere use of the title. In the same year and in respect to the same novel, in Harper _v._ Ganthony, the Harpers, as owners of the copyright of "Trilby," also obtained from Judge Lacombe an injunction against Miss Ganthony, who had presented at the Eden Musee a series of monologues in costume following the plot of the story, which the judge held to constitute a dramatic version and therefore an infringement. A story, "The transmogrification of Dan," purchased by the _Smart Set_ for $85, copyrighted as part of that periodical and assigned back to the author, was dramatized by Paul Armstrong and produced by the defendants under the name of "The heir to the Hoorah," retaining the central incident of the story, though with modification and extension of the characters, situation and dialogue. In 1908 Judge Hazel, in Dam _v._ Kerke La Shelle Co., in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, awarded the full profits from the dramatic representation as damages to the executor of Dam, the author of the story; which decision was fully upheld in 1910 by the Circuit Court of Appeals through Judge Noyes. Thus the new American code specifically enacts into statute law previous decisions of the American courts.