"A book must include every part of the book; it must include every print, design, or engraving which forms part of the book, as well as the letterpress therein, which is another part of it," according to the ruling decision of Vice-Chancellor Parker, in 1852, in the English case of Bogue _v._ Houlston. To the same effect Drone says: "The copyright protects the whole and all the parts and contents of a book: when the book comprises a number of independent compositions, each of the latter is as fully protected as the whole." The copyright under the new law protects (sec. 3) "all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted." The practice of some publishers in copyrighting a magazine and also specific articles or engravings seems, therefore, a work of doubtful expediency. The new law specifically gives to the proprietor of "composite works or periodicals" (sec. 3) "all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted." {Sidenote: Non-copyrightable parts excepted} On the other hand, copyright cannot extend to any part of a book not subject in itself to copyright, even under the old law, and the new law (sec. 3) is perfectly plain. The general copyright is not, however, vitiated as to copyrightable portions by its seeming to cover non-copyrightable portions, as was held by Lord Kenyon, in 1801, in Cary _v._ Longman. But when copyright is claimed on a work partly composed of uncopyrightable matter the courts may require the claimant, on interrogatories, to designate which parts are and which are not original. "If the parts cannot be separated," says Drone, "it would seem that copyright will not vest in any of it." The new code is to the same effect. {Sidenote: Book illustrations} The application of these principles to the protection of a "new edition" which is new only with respect to added illustrations, is very simple. It is only the new illustrations which can be copyrighted, and it is matter for question whether the endeavor to protect an edition of unaltered text by a general copyright notice which really covers only a few added illustrations would not be a false use of the copyright notice. A proper copyright notice on an illustrated book will, however, protect the illustrations against indirect as well as direct reproduction; thus in 1908 in Harper _v._ Kalem, Judge Lacombe in the U. S. Circuit Court in New York protected certain illustrations in "Ben Hur" against their reproduction in moving pictures. {Sidenote: Translations}