A copy of a copy is an infringement of the original work and incidentally of the direct copy, unless the latter is published without proper copyright notice by authority of the proprietor of copyright in the original. This was held in 1892, in Lucas _v._ Williams, by the Queen's Bench, where a photograph from an engraving was held an infringement of the original painting; and the decision of Judge McPherson in the U. S. Circuit Court in Pennsylvania non-suiting, in Champney _v._ Haag, in 1903, the proprietor of a copyright painting because the offending photograph infringed only the copyrighted photograph from which it was directly taken, is not considered good law. A photograph may infringe the copyright in statuary, as was held in 1907, in Bracken _v._ Rosenthal, in the U. S. Circuit Court. {Sidenote: Alterations} As to altered copies and alterations, there have been many judicial decisions, the gist of which is that a copy is not less an infringement because it alters details, provided there is copying of a substantial part; that a copy in another medium not exactly reproducing the original or a copy of it, is nevertheless an infringement; that a substantial alteration, or adaptation of an existing work, may in itself be copyrightable, but that slight alterations will not justify the copyrighting of a work in the public domain; and that an artist has the right to prevent alteration of his original work by a subsequent owner, as involving damage to his professional reputation. Where a copyrighted portrait of Lillian Russell was combined with a portrait of another actress, the composite photograph was held to be a violation of the copyright, in Springer Lith. Co. _v._ Falk, in 1894, by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, through Judge Lacombe. So in the English case of Bolton _v._ London Exhibitions Co., in 1898, where a lithographer copied the outline of a lion from a copyrighted photograph, and filled in details from natural histories in making a circus poster, Justice Mathew in the Queen's Bench Division held that there had been reproduction of the photograph and that a work of art had been "vulgarized unlawfully." Where certain etchings and engravings had been copied by the Brooklyn Photogravure Co., omitting the tints, plate mark and title, it was held in 1892, in Fishel _v._ Lueckel, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York that this was an infringement; said Judge Townsend: "The appropriation of a part of the work is no less an infringement than the appropriation of the whole, provided 'the alleged infringing part contains any substantial repetitions of any material parts which are original and distinctive." And where a photograph of Julia Marlowe was reproduced in a lithograph, with many points of dissimilarity, some of them because of difference in process, it was held in Falk _v._ Donaldson Lith. Co., in 1893, by Judge Townsend in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York, that the differences