Both persons and use must be restricted. In compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 19, MBA placed a copyright notice, the publication date of 1971 and/or 1973, and the identification of MBA as the copyright holder on all its PRIDE manuals and forms. Nevertheless, MBA argues that there was no general publication, notwithstanding its use of the copyright notice. Bryce testified that customers using PRIDE are allowed unlimited reproduction of PRIDE manuals and forms as long as MBA’s copyright notice is included and that MBA cannot account for the number or whereabouts of such copies. When the principal facts and the reason able inferences are undisputed, as they are here, we are not bound by the findings of the trial court. State v. Williams, 104 Wis. 2d 15, 21, 310 N.W. 134 F. 321 (2d Cir 1904) (<HOLDING>). Courts were more likely to find a general
holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection holding that a set of photographs taken to be used as studies for a painting did not qualify for vara protection holding that exhibition of a painting in a public gallery did not constitute publication divesting plaintiff of his common law protection