In a recent case of Barnes _v._ Miner in 1903, where an injunction was asked against a vaudeville change artist who had combined songs in costume with a cinematograph representation of scenes in the dressing room during the changes, Judge Ray, in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, declined to grant relief, adding that as a mere spectacular composition such "sketch" was not properly a dramatic composition. The English law was construed in 1848 in Russell _v_. Smith, when a song "The ship on fire," in which dramatic action was exhibited by the singer alone without costume or scenery, while seated at the piano, was construed to be a "dramatic piece"--the action being "not related but represented." In 1872, in Clark _v._ Bishop, a music hall song "Come to Peckham Rye" was similarly protected as a "dramatic piece." But in 1895, in Fuller _v._ Blackpool Winter Gardens Co., it was held that the song "Daisy Bell," though sung in character costume, was not a "dramatic piece" because its representation did not require acting or dramatic effect. Later decision construed the act of 1833 to cover only spoken words, the English Court of Appeal holding in Scholz _v_. Amasis in 1909, through Lord Chief Justice Farwell, that only substantial copying of written dialogue, and not of a plot or situation, constitutes infringement, and in Tate _v._ Fullbrook in 1908, that the writer of the dialogue is the sole author of the musical sketch though devised and staged by another. But in two cases, one by Moore in 1903 and one by Fraser in 1905, against George Edwardes, English juries gave heavy damages where the scenarios for musical comedies submitted to that theatrical manager had been made the basis for musical comedies by other writers afterward produced at Daly's Theatre, London. {Sidenote: Moving pictures may be infringements} The opinion of Judge Blatchford was quoted and followed by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, in 1909, in Harper _v._ Kalem Co., which said through Judge Ward: "The artist's idea of describing by action the story the author has written in words is a dramatization. It is not necessary that there should be both speech and action in dramatic performances although dialogue and action usually characterize them." In this case the defendants had caused persons to represent the action in certain scenes of "Ben Hur" and photographed this representation on a moving picture film, which they reproduced for sale to theatoriums, where public exhibitions were given for profit. The court held under the old law that "moving pictures would be a form of expression infringing the author's exclusive right to dramatize his writings and publicly to perform such dramatization." The contrary view was held in the English case of Karno _v._ Pathe Freres in 1908, where also the Court of Appeal held, in 1909, that not the manufacturer but the exhibitor of such a film would be the responsible party if there were infringement.