Collections are copyrightable as compilations or otherwise, and where the use of copyrighted poems or other copyright material is permitted, these are protected by general copyright notice on the collection. Permission to use a copyrighted poem, for instance, in a specified collection does not grant a license to use it in other form, though it could be used in a combination of such collections. In 1896, in Gabriel _v._ McCabe, Judge Grosscup in the U. S. Circuit Court in Illinois held that the licensor could not prevent the use of a song licensed for a particular collection in a combination of this collection in another collection or in an abridged edition of the collection, though an "abridgment" involving a reprint of the song by itself would have been an unfair use of the license. {Sidenote: Titles} As to titles, which are not mentioned in the new code, both English and American court decisions are broadly and generally, though with some exceptions, to the effect that there is no copyright protection for the title of a book _per se_, but it may be considered an essential part of the book. Judge Shepley held, in 1872, in his elaborate discussion of the question of titles in Osgood _v._ Allen as to the periodical _Our Young Folks_, that "the right secured is the property in the literary composition--the product of the mind and genius of the author--and not in the name or title given to it. The title does not necessarily involve any literary composition; it may not be, and certainly the statute does not require that it should be, the product of the author's mind.... It is a mere appendage, which only identifies, and frequently does not in any way describe, the literary composition itself.... If there were no piracy of the copyrighted book there would be no remedy ... for the use of a title which could not be copyrighted independently of the book." Judge Lacombe accepted this view in his decision of the "Trilby" case, cited beyond. {Sidenote: Changed titles} Conversely, the publication of a copyrighted work under a changed title, with the original notice of copyright, would probably not invalidate the copyright, though it would make identification more difficult and prevent the copyright certificate being _prima facie_ proof; and change of title is a practice altogether reprehensible. A new copyright of the same book changed only in title, with a new copyright notice of later date, could scarcely be construed as a new edition and in the absence of the original copyright notice the copyright might thus be abandoned or forfeited and the work be dedicated to the public. {Sidenote: General titles} General titles cannot in any way be protected. The publishers of the "_Bibliographie Universelle_," in France, the "Post Office Directory," in England, and of "Irving's Works," in America, were all defeated in attempts to prevent the use of those titles. {Sidenote: Titles as trade-marks}