The right of a contributor to have his name associated with his work in the case of an encyclopaedia, at issue in Basil Jones _v._ American Law Book Co., where the individual writer's name was replaced by that of a distinguished jurist, though upheld in 1905 by Judge McCall in the N. Y. Supreme Court, was denied in the reversal of this decision in 1908 by the Appellate Division through Judge Houghton. {Sidenote: Added material and alteration} Where a publisher had affixed additional material to a copyrighted book, the author was denied relief in Holloway _v._ Bradley, in 1886, by Judge Butler in the U. S. Circuit Court; but this decision would not hold where the added material was so placed as to give the false impression that it was written by the author of the copyrighted work. Thus in 1910, in Gilbert _v._ Workman, Sir W. S. Gilbert obtained an order in the Chancery Division through Justice Neville against the interpolation of a song into his copyrighted opera without his consent. {Sidenote: Separate registration of contributions} This would hold true to like extent in respect to alterations, which might be permissible when in the nature of proof-reading correction or editorial revision, but contrary to equity when they pervert, obscure, or otherwise misrepresent the author. In respect to composite works, the new American code indicates (sec. 23) that there may be separate registration of contributions, inferentially in the person of "an individual author," as distinguished from the general entry for copyright of the composite work. This doubtless refers to the practice, for instance, of the entry in his own name of his specific work, by a novelist or other contributor to a periodical, in addition to the general entry of the number of the periodical of which it is a copyrightable component part. The only direct effect is to give to the specific author _prima facie_ evidence of ownership in his specific contribution, as distinguished from the right of the proprietor of the general copyright, and in some respects the clause is ambiguous and perhaps misleading, making it the more desirable that the relation of the individual author should be defined by contract. It is not really in conflict, however, with the principle that there cannot be two copyrights in the same work, as the evident distinction implied is that the proprietor of the general copyright holds the right for publication in the periodical and that the specific author reserves the right of publication in other form, which distinction is sufficiently provided for as a matter of contract and does not depend upon specific entry of the contribution. The wisest course may be for the proprietor of the periodical or other composite work to reassign his interest in the specific contribution, as was done by the proprietors of the _Smart Set_ as adjudicated in the case of Dam _v._ Kirke La Shelle Co., cited in the chapter on dramatic and musical copyright, and thus remove possible