upheld in the closely similar English case of Ellis _v._ Ogden, in 1894, by Justice Collins in the Queen's Bench Division. But in the case of Ellis _v._ Marshall, in 1895, Justice Charles in the same court held that where two actors had been invited by a photographer to sit for him in costume and some photographs had also been taken in plain clothes, of which the actors purchased copies, they were entitled to authorize publication in a magazine. It may be noted that New York and other states have statutes forbidding portraiture of persons without their consent; but this prohibition would probably not apply to photographing of a crowd, unless the portrait of a special person were lifted out or made prominent. A photographer may not exhibit a photograph of a patron, as in his shop window, without the sitter's consent. {Sidenote: Right of employer} The employer of an artist in other work as well as portraiture may become _ipse facto_ the copyright proprietor. In 1871, in Stannard _v._ Harrison, where a wall map had been made by an engraver from rough sketch and material and from directions given by the plaintiff, the English Court of Chancery, through Vice-Chancellor Bacon, held: "That the plaintiff cannot draw himself is a matter wholly unimportant if he has caused other persons to draw for him. He invents the subject of the design beyond all question ... this is a work of diligence, industry, and for aught I know of genius on the part of the plaintiff." This case, which arose under the engravings acts in England, where an engraving may be copyrighted by an employer,--though the engraver of his own original design is the only person entitled to copyright,--is of wide bearing throughout artistic copyright. On the other hand, in 1898, in Bolton _v._ London Exhibitions Co., Justice Mathew in the Queen's Bench Division held that the employer, who had given to the engraver only a "general idea" of what he desired, was not the party liable for infringement. {Sidenote: Photographs}