delivered the opinion of the Court.
By this suit, instituted in the District of Columbia, March 8,- 1933, petitioner seeks an injunction, damages, etc., because of alleged unauthorized use of a magazine article copyrighted under Act March 4, 1909 (Ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075; U. S. C., Title 17). Pertinent portions of the statute are in the margin.1 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, *32210 U. S. 339, 346; Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co., 215 U. S. 182, 188.
The trial court sustained petitioner’s claim and directed ascertainment of profits, damages, etc. The Court of Appeals ruled that, as copies of the magazine had not been promptly deposited in the Copyright Office as directed by *33§ 12, the action could not be maintained. It accordingly reversed the decree of the trial court and remanded the cause.
The record discloses—
December 10, 1931, petitioner published an issue of “The Washingtonian,” a monthly magazine, and claimed *34copyright by printing thereon the required statutory notice. Eourteen months later, February 21, 1933, copies were first deposited in the Copyright Office and a certificate of registration secured. This suit followed, March 8, 1933.
*35In August, Í932, Liveright, Inc., published and offered for general sale a book written by two of the respondents and printed by another, which contained material substantially identical with an article contained in The Washingtonian of December, 1931. The usual notice claimed copyright of this book. August 26, 1932, copies were deposited in the Copyright Office and certificate of registration issued.
Respondents concede that petitioner secured upon publication a valid copyright of The Washingtonian. But they insist that although prompt deposit of copies is not prerequisite to copyright, no action can be maintained *36because of infringement prior in date to a tardy deposit. Counsel assert — “The very foundation of the right to maintain an action for infringement is deposit of copies and registration of the work. Neither of these has the slightest bearing upon the creation of the copyright itself under Section 9. That is obtained merely by publication with notice as required by the Act.” Also, “If copies were not deposited promptly after publication the opportunity to comply with the requirement of promptness was gone forever as to that particular work.”
Petitioner submits that under the statute prompt deposit of copies is not prerequisite to an action for infringement; and that under the facts here disclosed deposit before suit was enough.
The Act of 1909 is a complete revision of the copyright laws, different from the earlier Act both in scheme and language. It introduced many changes and was intended definitely to grant valuable, enforceable rights to authors, publishers,' etc., without■ burdensome requirements; “to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world.” 2
*37Under the old Act deposit of the work was essential to the existence of copyright. This requirement caused serious difficulties and unfortunate losses. (See H. R. Report, note 2, supra.) The present statute (§9) declares — “Any person entitled thereto by this Act may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this Act [§ 18] ; . . And respondents rightly say “It is no longer necessary to deposit anything to secure a copyright of a published work, but only to publish with the notice of copyright.”
Section 10 declares—
“That such person may obtain registration of his claim to copyright by complying with the provisions of' this *38Act, including the deposit of copies, and upon such compliance the register of copyrights shall issue to him the certificate provided for in section fifty-five of this Act.”
Section 12—
“That after copyright has been secured by publication of the work with the notice of copyright as provided in section nine of this Act, there shall be promptly deposited in the copyright office or in the mail addressed to the register of copyrights, Washington, District of Columbia, two complete copies of the best edition thereof then published, ... No action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of such work shall have been complied with.”
Section 13—
“That should the copies called for by section twelve of this Act not be promptly deposited as herein provided, the register of copyrights may at any time after the publication of the work, upon actual notice, require the proprietor of the copyright to deposit them, and after thé said demand shall have been made, in default of the deposit of copies of the work within three months from any part of the United States, . . . the- proprietor of the copyright shall be liable to a fine of one hundred dollars and to pay te the Library of Congress twice the amount of the retail price of the best edition of the work, and the copyright shall become void.”
Sections 59 and 60 were new legislation. They show clearly enough that deposit of copies is not required primarily in order to insure a complete, permanent collection of all copyrighted works open to the public. Deposited copies may be distributed or destroyed under the direction of the Librarian3 and this is incompatible with *39the notion that copies are now required in order that the subject matter of protected works may always be available for information and to prevent unconscious infringement.
Although immediately upon publication of The Washingtonian for December, 1931, petitioner secured copyright of the articles therein, respondents maintain that through failure promptly to deposit copies in the Copyright Office the right to sue for infringement was lost. In effect, that the provision in § 12 relative to suits should be treated as though it contained the words “promptly,” also “unless” instead of “until,” and read— No action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work unless the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies promptly and registration of such wofk shall have been complied with.
Plausible arguments in support of this view were advanced by the Court of Appeals. We think, however, its adoption would not square with the words actually used in the statute, would cause conflict with its general purpose, and in. practice produce unfortunate consequences. We cannot accept it.
Petitioner’s claim of copyright came to fruition immediately upon publication. Without further notice it was good against all the world. Its value depended upon the possibility of enforcement.
The use of the word “until” in § 12 rather than “unless” indicates that mere delay in making deposit of copies was not enough to cause forfeiture of the right theretofore distinctly granted.
Section 12 provides “That after copyright has been secured by publication of the work with the notice of *40copyright as provided in section nine of this Act, there shall be promptly deposited in the copyright office” two copies, etc. The Act nowhere defines “promptly,” and to make the continued existence of copyright depend upon promptness would lead to unfortunate uncertainty and confusion. The great number of copyrights annually obtained is indicated by note 3, supra. The difficulties consequent upon the former requirement of deposit before publication are pointed out in the Committee Report. These would be enlarged if whenever effort is made to vindicate a copyright it would become necesary to show deposits were made promptly after publication especially since there is no definition of “promptly.”
Section 13 authorizes the register of copyrights to give notice if he finds undue delay and to require deposit of copies. Upon failure to comply within three months the proprietor shall be subject to a fine and the copyright shall become void. Evidently mere delay does not necessarily invalidate the copyright; its existence for three months after actual notice is recognized. Without right of vindication a copyright is valueless. It would be going too far to infer that tardiness alone destroys something valuable both to proprietor and the public.
Section 20 saves the copyright notwithstanding omission of notice; § 23 declares “That the copyright secured by this Act shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date of first publication, whether the copyrighted work bears the author’s true name or is published anonymously or under an assumed name: . . .” Furthermore, proper publication gives notice to all the world that immediate copyright exists. One charged with such notice is not injured by mere failure to deposit copies. The duty not to infringe is unaffected thereby. A certificate of registration provided for by § 55 apparently may be ob*41tained at any time and becomes evidence of.- the facts stated therein.
Sections 23 and 24, which permit renewal of a copyright by application and registration within its last year although the deposited copyrighted publication may have been disposed of under §§ 59-60, give clear indication that the requirement for deposit is. not for the purpose of a permanent record of copyrighted publications and that such record is not indispensable to the existence of the copyright.4
The penalty for delay clearly specified in § 13 is adequate for punishment of delinquents and to enforce contributions of desirable books to the Library. To give § 12 a more drastic effect would tend to defeat the broad purpose of the enactment. The Report of the Congressional Committee points out that forfeiture after notice *42and three months’ further delay was thought too severe by some. Nowhere does it suggest approval of the much more drastic result now insisted upon by respondents.
Read together as the Committee which reported the bill said they should be, §§12 and 13 show, we think, the Congress intended that prompt deposit when deemed necessary should be enforced through actual notice by the register; also that while no action can be maintained before copies are actually deposited, mere delay will not destroy the right to sue. Such forfeitures are never to be inferred from doubtful language.
This view is in accord with the interpretation of somewhat similar provisions of the English Copyright Act. Goubaud v. Wallace and Cate v. Devon Constitutional Newspaper Co., supra. Also with the conclusions reached in Lumiere v. Pathé Exchange and Mittenthal v. Berlin, supra.
The challenged decree must be reversed. The cause will be remanded to the District Court.
Reversed.
Act March 4, 1909—
“See. 1. That any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this Act, shall have the exclusive right:
"(a) To print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work; . . .
“Sec. 3. That the copyright provided by this Act shall protect all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, and- all matter therein in which copyright is already subsisting, but without extending the duration or scope of such copyright. The copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this Act.
“Sec. 4. That the works for which copyright may be secured under this Act shall include all the writings of an author.
“See. 9. That any person entitled thereto by this Act may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this Act; and such notice shall be affixed to *32each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, . . .
"Sec. 10. That such person may obtain registration of his claim to copyright by' complying with the provisions of this Act, including the deposit of copies, and upon such compliance the register of copyrights shall issue to him the certificate provided for in section fifty-five of this Act.
“Sec. 12. That after copyright has been secured by publication of the work with the notice of copyright as provide^ in section nine of this Act, there shall be promptly deposited in the copyright office or in the mail addressed to the register of copyrights, Washington, District of Columbia, two complete copies of the best edition thereof then published, ... No action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of such work shall have been complied with.
“Sec. 13. That should the copies called for by section twelve of this Act not be promptly deposited as herein provided, the register of copyrights may at any time after the publication of the work, upon actual notice, require the proprietor of the copyright to deposit them, and after the said demand shall have been made, in default of the deposit of copies of the work within three months from any part of the United States, except an outlying territorial possession of the United States, or within six months from any outlying territorial possession of the United States, or from any foreign country, the proprietor of the copyright shall be liable to a fine of one hundred dollars and to pay to the Library of Congress twice the amount of the retail price of the best edition of the work, and the copyright shall become void.
“Sec. 18. Thai the notice of copyright required by section nine of this Act shall consist either of the word “Copyright” or the abbreviation “Copr.”, accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor, and if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work, the *33notice shall include also the year in which the copyright was secured by publication. . . .
“Sec. 20.. That where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this Act with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, . . .
“See. 23. That the copyright secured by this Act shall endure for twenty-eight- years from the date of first publication, whether the copyrighted work bears the author’s true name or is published anonymously or under an assumed name: Provided, That in the case of any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or of any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright: And provided further, That in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work when such contribution has been separately registered, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of twenty-eight years when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term, of copyright: And provided further, That in default of the registration of such application for renewal and ex*34tension, the copyright in any work shall determine at the expiration of twenty-eight years from first publication.
“Sec. 24. That the copyright subsisting in any work at the time when this Act goes into effect may, at the expiration of the term provided for under existing law, be renewed and extended by the author of such work if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then by the author’s executors, or in the absence of a will, his next of kin, for a further period such that the entire term shall be equal to that secured by this Act, including the renewal period: Provided, however, That if the work be a composite work upon which copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, then such proprietor shall be entitled to the privilege of renewal and extension granted under this section: Provided, That application for such renewal and extension shall be made to the copyright office and duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the existing term.
“Sec. 25. That if any person shall infringe the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States such person shall be liable:
“(a) To an injunction restraining such infringement;
“(b) To pay to the copyright proprietor such damages as the copyright proprietor may have suffered due to the infringement, as well as all the profits which the infringer shall have made from such infringement, . . .
“See. 27. That the proceedings for an injunction, damages, and profits, and those for the seizure of infringing copies, plates, molds, matrices, and so forth, aforementioned, may be united in one action.
“Sec. 54. That the register of copyrights shall provide and keep such record books in the copyright office as are required to carry out the provisions of this Act, and whenever deposit has been made in the copyright office of a copy of any work under the provisions of this Act he shall make entry thereof.
“Sec. 55. That in the case of each entry the person recorded as the claimant of the copyright shall be entitled to a certificate of registration under seal of the copyright office, to contain his name and address, *35. . . Said certificate shall be admitted in any court as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. In addition to such certificate the register of copyrights shall furnish, upon request, without additional fee, a receipt for the copies of the work deposited to complete the registration.
“Sec. 59. That of the articles deposited in the copyright office under the provisions .of the copyright laws of the United States or of this Act, the Librarian of Congress shall determine what books and other articles shall be. transferred to the permanent collections of the Library of Congress, including the law library, and what other books or articles shall be placed in the reserve collections of the Library of Congress for sale or exchange, or be transferred to other governmental libraries in the District of Columbia for use therein.
“Sec. 60. That of any articles undisposed of as above provided, together with all titles and correspondence relating thereto, the Librarian of Congress and the register of copyrights jointly shall, at suitable intervals, determine what of these received during any period of years it is desirable or useful to preserve in the permanent files of the copyright office, and, after due notice as hereinafter provided, may within their discretion cause the remaining articles and other things to be destroyed: . . .
“Sec. 62. That in the interpretation and construction of this Act 'the date of publication’ shall in the case of a work of which copies are reproduced for sale or distribution be held to be the earliest date when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority, and the word ‘author’ shall include an employer in the case of works made for hire.”
See Act of March 3, 1891, Ch. 665, 26 Stat. 1106; Goubaud v. Wallace (1877), 36 Law Times (N. S.) 704, 705; 25 W. R. 604; Cate v. Devon & Exeter Constitutional Newspaper Co. (1889), L. R. 40 Ch. D. 500, 37 W. R. 487, 58 L. J. Ch. 288, 60 L. T. 672, 5 T. L. R. 229; Lumiere v. Pathé Exchange (1921), 275 F. 428; Mittenthal v. Berlin (1923), 291 F. 714.
Also Report of House Committee on Patents, February 22, 1909 (No. 2222). Among other things this says—
“Sections 12 and 13 deal with the deposit of copies, and should be considered together. They materially alter the existing law, which provides that in order to make the copyright valid there must be deposited two complete copies of the book or other article not later than the date of first publication. The failure of a shipping clerk to see that the copies go promptly forward to Washington may destroy a copyright of great value, and many copyrights have been lost because by some accident or mistake this requirement was not complied with. The committee felt that some modification of *37this drastic provision, under which the delay of a single day might destroy a coypright, might well be made. The bill reported by the committee provides that there shall be ‘promptly’ deposited in the copyright office, or in the mail addressed to the register of copyrights, two complete copies of the best edition then published, and that no action or proceeding shall be maintained for the infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions with respect to the deposit of copies and the registration of such work shall have been complied with.
“If the works are not promptly deposited, we provide that the register of copyrights may at any time after publication of the work, upon actual notice, require the proprietor of the copyright to deposit, and then in default of deposit of copies of the work within three months from any part of the United States, except an outlying territorial possession of the United States, or within six months from any outlying territorial possession of the United States, or from any foreign country, the proprietor of the copyright shall be liable to a fine of $100 and to pay to the Library of Congress twice the amount of the retail price of the best edition of the work, and the copyright shall become void. It was suggested that the forfeiture of the copyright for failure to deposit copies was too drastic a remedy, but your committee feel that in many cases it will be the only effective remedy: certainly the provision for compelling the deposit of copies by the imposition of a fine would be absolutely unavailing should the copyright proprietor be the citizen or subject of a foreign state.” ■
See Report Register Copyrights for 1938. During the year there .were 166,248 registrations; 194,433 current articles deposited were *39transferred to the Library of Congress. Also 3,612 motion picture films, and 43,302 deposits' from other classes were returned to the authors or proprietors. .
For Statement of the views of the Copyright Office concerning Act of 1909 and practice thereunder, see Letter from the Register of Copyrights to the Librarian of Congress dated September 17, 1938, printed at the Government Printing Office 1938. The following appears therein — (p. 20)
“The failure to make deposit within the proper time does not in itself invalidate the copyright which has already been secured by publication with notice; this can now result only after failure to make deposit upon actual notice as provided in- Section 13.
“It is true that Section 12 provides that no action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement until, the ‘deposit' of copies and registration’ have taken place, which presumably was added as a special inducement to make prompt deposit;' but this does not answer the question.
“Heretofore, the practice of the office has been to accept copies at any time subsequent to publication with notice; thus, in effect, attaching no significance to the word ‘promptly’; and certain decisions .of the courts seem to sanction the practice . . .
“It seems very desirable to remove this doubt and uncertainty by eliminating the word ‘promptly’ from Section 12, leaving Section 13 as heretofore to take care of any delinquent. . . .”