CHAPTER XII_A Treatise Upon the Law of Copyright in the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the Crown, and in the United States of America Containing a Full Appendix of All Acts of Parliament International Conventions, Orders in Council, Treasury Minute and Acts of Congress Now in Force.

PUBLISHING AND PRINTING AGREEMENTS

Publishers' Agreements 227

Printers' Agreements 230

PART II

_THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES_

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY 235

CHAPTER II

WHAT WORKS ARE ENTITLED TO COPYRIGHT

SEC. 1. AN ORIGINAL LITERARY OR ARTISTIC WORK 236

SEC. 2. NATIONALITY OF THE AUTHOR 247

SEC. 3. NECESSARY FORMALITIES 250

Conditions Precedent 251

Delivery of Title 251

Delivery of Description 253

Delivery of Copies 253

Printing in the United States 254

Retrospective Provision 254

Notice of Copyright 255

Publication 260

SEC. 4. IMMORAL WORKS 266

SEC. 5. DURATION OF COPYRIGHT 267

CHAPTER III

WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT

SEC. 1. THE AUTHOR 269

SEC. 2. THE EMPLOYER 271

SEC. 3. THE STATE 272

SEC. 4. THE ASSIGNEE 272

CHAPTER IV

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

SEC. 1. WHAT IS A PIRATICAL COPY 276

Copying may be Indirect 277

The Intention need not be Bad 277

Proof of Copying 277

No Monopoly in the Subject-Matter 278

Taking a Substantial Part 279

Fair Use 281

Improvement no Excuse 283

Different Object 283

Extract for Review 284

Abridgments 284

Translations 286

Dramatic Performing Right 286

Musical Rights 287

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED ACTS AND REMEDIES 287

Account of Profits 289

Damages 290

Penalties 290

Forfeiture 290

Injunction 291

Who is Liable 291

Limitation of Action 292

Acquiescence 292

Pleading 293

Penalties for affixing False Notice 293

Importing Books Printed outside the United States 294

CHAPTER V

COMMON LAW RIGHTS

SEC. 1. PUBLISHED WORK 296

Passing Off 296

SEC. 2. UNPUBLISHED WORK 298

APPENDIX

BRITISH STATUTES

THE ENGRAVING COPYRIGHT ACT, 1734 303

THE ENGRAVING COPYRIGHT ACT, 1766 305

THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1775 (Universities) 307

THE PRINTS COPYRIGHT ACT, 1777 310

THE SCULPTURE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1814 311

THE DRAMATIC COPYRIGHT ACT, 1833 313

THE LECTURES COPYRIGHT ACT, 1835 315

THE PRINTS AND ENGRAVINGS COPYRIGHT ACT, 1836 316

THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1836 (Compensation to Libraries) 317

THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1842 317

THE INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACT, 1844 329

THE COLONIAL COPYRIGHT ACT, 1847 337

THE INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACT, 1852 339

THE FINE ARTS COPYRIGHT ACT, 1862 343

THE INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACT, 1875 348

THE CANADA COPYRIGHT ACT, 1875 349

THE CUSTOMS LAWS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876 350

THE COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) ACT, 1882 351

THE INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACT, 1886 353

THE COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) ACT, 1888 360

THE REVENUE ACT, 1889 361

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

THE BERNE CONVENTION, 1886 361

ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1887 370

THE ADDITIONAL ACT OF PARIS, 1896 373

ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1898 376

TREASURY MINUTE

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS TREASURY MINUTE, 1887 377

AMERICAN STATUTES

REVISED STATUTES, 1874 379

ACT OF CONGRESS, June 18, 1874 384

" " August 1, 1882 384

" " October 1, 1890 385

" " March 3, 1891 385

" " March 3, 1893 389

" " March 2, 1895 390

" " January 6, 1897 390

" " March 3, 1897 391

TABLE OF CASES

_N. B. In the page references the figures in larger type indicate

that the facts of the case will be found most fully stated on that

particular page._

ENGLISH, SCOTCH, IRISH, INDIAN, AND COLONIAL CASES

ABERNETHY _v._ Hutchinson 1825 3 L. J. (O. S.), 37, 38, 219,

Ch., 209 222, =224=

Adams _v._ Batley 1887 18 Q. B. D., 625 144

Aflalo _v._ Lawrence -- [1902], 1 Ch., 264 =71=

Ager _v._ Collingridge 1886 2 T. L. R., 291 =20=

Ager _v._ P. & O. Steam 1884 26 Ch. D., 637 =20=, 102, 118

Navigation Co.

Alexander _v._ Mackenzie 1847 9 D., 748 =23=, =101=, 104

Allen _v._ Lyon 1884 5 Ont. Rep., 615 118

Anglo-Canadian _v._ 1889 17 Ont. Rep., 239 191

Suckling

Anonymous Case 1774 Lofft., 775 115

Anstruther _v._ Bentley 1866 14 W. R., 630 228

Archbold _v._ Sweet 1832 5 C. and P., 219 214

Austria, Emperor of, _v._ 1861 4 L. T. (N. S.), 494 90

Day

Avanzo _v._ Mudie 1854 10 Exch., 203 =200=

Avery _v._ Wood -- [1891], 3 Ch., 115 144,156

BACH _v._ Longman 1777 2 Cowp., 623 36, 97

Baily _v._ Taylor 1829 1 Russ. and My., 73 15, =23=, 86,

87, 98, 105,

109

Barfield _v._ Nicholson 1824 2 Sim. and Stu., 1 62, 220,

229

Barnett _v._ Glossop 1835 1 Bing., N. C., 633 93

Baschet _v. London_ -- [1900], 1 Ch., 73 46, 152, 174,

_Illustrated Standard_ 179, 180, 201

Baskett _v._ Cunningham 1762 1 Wm. Black, 370 59, 60

Baskett _v._ University of 1758 2 Burr., 661 59

Cambridge

Bastow, _ex parte_ 1854 14 C. B., 631 54, 81, 82

Beal, _ex parte_ 1868 L. R., 3 Q. B., 387 91, 173, 179,

181, 184

Beckford _v._ Hood 1798 7 T. R., 620 36, 47, 86,

206

Beere _v._ Ellis 1889 5 T. L. R., 330 138

Bell _v._ Walker 1785 1 Bro. Ch. Cas., 450 115

Bell _v._ Whitehead 1839 8 L. J. Ch., 141 112

Bensley _v._ Bignold 1822 5 B. and Ald., 335 230

Bentley _v._ Foster 1839 10 Sim., 329 =42=

Black _v._ Murray & Son 1870 9 M., 341 12, =26=, 27,

111

Blackie _v._ Aikman 1827 5 Sh., 719 229

Blackwell _v._ Harper 1740 2 Atk., 93 146, 151, 152

Blake _v._ Nicholson 1814 3 M. and S., 167 230

Blanchett _v._ Ingram 1887 3 T. L. R., 687 38

Bleaden _v._ Hancock 1829 4 C. and P., 152 230

Bogue _v._ Houlston 1852 5 De G. and Sm., 267 12, =34=, 149

Bohn _v._ Bogue 1846 10 Jur., 420 98, 101

Bolton _v._ Aldin 1895 65 L. J. Q. B., 120 181

Bolton _v._ London 1898 14 T. L. R., 550 179, 183

Exhibitions

Boosey _v._ Davidson 1846 4 D. and L., 147 92, 93

" " 1849 13 Q. B., 257 42, 94

Boosey _v._ Fairlie 1877 7 Ch. D., 301 26

Boosey _v._ Jefferys 1851 4 Exch., 145 42

Boosey _v._ Purday 1846 10 Jur., 1038 93

" " 1849 4 Exch., 145 40, 42

Boosey _v._ Whight, -- [1899], 1 Ch., 836 11, 12

" " -- [1900], 1 Ch., 122 11, =33=, 97

Borthwick _v. Evening 1888 37 Ch. D., 449 88, 207, 209,

Post_ 212

Boucicault _v._ Chatterton 1876 5 Ch. D., 267 36, 41, 127,

128, 129

Boucicault _v._ Delafield 1863 1 H. and M., 597 41, 129, 193

Boydell _v._ Drummond 1809 11 East., 142 230

Bradbury _v._ Beeton 1869 39 L. J. Ch., 57 207, 209, 211

Bradbury _v._ Dickens 1859 27 Beav., 53 207

Bradbury _v._ Hotten 1872 L. R., 8 Ex., 1 99, 109, =110=

Bradbury _v._ Sharp 1891 [1891], W. N., 143 89

Bramwell _v_, Halcomb 1836 3 My. and Cr., 737 99

Bridgman _v._ Green 1755 2 Ves. Sen., 627 219

Britain _v._ Hanks 1902 Wright, J., April 15 162, 163

British Museum _v._ Payne 1828 2 Y. and J., 166 56

Brooke _v._ Chitty 1831 2 Coop. Cas., 216 229

Brooke _v._ Milliken 1789 3 T. R., 509 91

Brooks _v._ Cock 1835 3 Ad. and E., 138 151

Brooks _v._ Religious Tract 1897 45 W. R., 476 183, 184

Society

Brown _v._ Cooke 1846 16 L. J. Ch., 140 68, 71

Burnett _v._ Chetwood 1720 2 Mer., 441 46, 117

Butterworth _v._ Kelly 1888 4 T. L. R., 430 84

Butterworth _v._ Robinson 1801 5 Ves., 709 =28=, 115

Buxton _v._ James 1851 5 De G. and Sm., 80 40, 41,

42, 87

Byron _v._ Johnston 1816 2 Meriv., 29 215

CABLE _v._ Marks 1882 47 L. T. (N. S.), 432 =31=

Cadell _v._ Anderson 1787 Mor. Dic., 8310 =26=

Caird _v._ Sime 1887 12 A. C., 326 37, 38, 220,

221, =222=

Cambridge University _v._ 1812 16 East, 317 56, 86

Bryer

Campbell _v._ Scott 1842 11 Sim., 31 88, 101, 112

Caproni _v._ Alberti 1892 40 W. R., 235 162

Carnan _v._ Bowles 1786 1 Cox Cha. Cas., 16, 27, 113,

283 164

Carr _v._ Hood 1808 1 Camp., 354 _n_ 213

Cary _v._ Faden 1799 5 Ves. 24 16, 46

Cary _v._ Kearsley 1802 4 Esp., 168 16, 75, 98,

100, 101,

113

Cary _v._ Longman 1801 1 East, 358 12, 16, =26=

Cassell _v._ Stiff 1856 2 K. and J., 279 53, 202

Cate _v._ Devon 1889 40 Ch. D., 500 11, =21=, 48,

50, 88,

99, 100,102

Chappell _v._ Boosey 1882 21 Ch. D., 232 121, 127

Chappell _v._ Davidson 1855 2 K. and J., 123 =210=

" " 1856 18 C. B., 194 46, 49, 87,

Chappell _v._ Purday 1843 12 M. and W., 303 54, 55, 79

" " 1845 14 M. and W., 303 40, 42

Chappell _v._ Sheard 1855 2 K. and J., 117 50, =210=

Chatterton _v._ Cave 1875 L. R., 10 C. P., 572 25, 26, 98,

123, 139

" " 1878 3 A. C., 483 25, 26, 97,

=98=, 102, 138

Chilton _v._ Progress -- [1895], 2 Ch., 29 14, =33=

Printing Co.

Church _v._ Linton 1894 25 Ont. Rep., 131 19, 24, 33

Clark _v._ Bell 1804 Mor. Dic. Literary 92

Property, App. 9

Clark _v._ Bishop 1872 25 L. T. (N. S.), =47=, 120, =124=,

908 133, 134

Clarke _v._ Freeman 1848 11 Beav., 112 214

Clarke _v._ Price 1819 2 Wills, C. C., 157 227

Clay _v._ Yates 1856 1 H. and N., 73 231

Clement _v._ Maddick 1859 1 Giff., 98 101, 207, 209,

=210=

Clementi _v._ Golding 1809 2 Camp., 25 11, 36

Clementi _v._ Walker 1824 2 B. and C., 861 40, 41, =75=, 77

Clowes _v._ Hogg 1870 W. N., 268 =210=

Cobbett _v._ Woodward 1872 L. R., 14 Eq., 407 =18=, 19, 95, 238

Cocks _v._ Purday 1848 5 C. B., 860 40, 42, 76, 77,

79, 93

Colburn _v._ Duncombe 1838 9 Sim., 151 76, 78

Colburn _v._ Simms 1843 2 Hare, 543 85, 86, 90

Cole _v._ Gear 1888 4 T. L. R., 246 141

Coleman _v._ Wathen 1793 5 T. R., 245 37, 122

Collette _v._ Goode 1878 7 Ch. D., 842 93

Collingridge _v._ Emmott 1887 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864 =50=, 51, 71

Collis _v._ Cater 1898 78 L. T. (N. S.), 613 =19=

Comyns _v._ Hyde 1895 43 W. R., 266 =35=, 149

Constable _v._ Brewster 1824 3 S., 215 209, 229

Cooper, _in re_ 1902 19 Pat. Des. and 31

Trade Mark Cases, 53

Cooper _v._ Stephens -- [1895], 1 Ch., 567 =34=, 78, 81, 98,

99, 118, 154,

160

Cooper _v._ Whittingham 1880 15 Ch. D., 501 84, 85, 87, 102

Coote _v._ Ingram 1887 35 Ch. D., 117 95

Coote _v._ Judd 1883 23 Ch. D., 727 70, 93

Cornish _v._ Upton 1861 4 L. T. (N. S.), 862 17

Corns _v._ Griffiths 1873 [1873], W. N., 93 =210=

Correspondent Newspaper 1865 11 Jur. (N. S.), 540 48, 208

_v._ Saunders

Cowan _v._ Milbourn 1867 L. R., 2 Ex. 46

Cowen _v._ Hulton 1882 46 L. T. (N. S.), 897 =212=

Cox _v._ Cox 1853 1 Eq. Rep., 94 77, 214

Cox _v. Land and Water_ 1869 L. R., 9 Eq., 324 11, =21=, 48,

89, 206

Cumberland _v._ Copeland 1861 7 H. and N., 118 134

" " 1862 1 H. and C., 194 77

Cumberland _v._ Planché 1834 1 A. and E., 580 135

D'ALMAINE _v._ Boosey 1835 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288 36, 37, =42=,

97, =113=, 115,

142

Davidson, _ex parte_ 1853 18 C. B., 296 54, 55

" " 1856 2 E. and B., 577 54

Davidson _v._ Bohn 1848 6 C. B., 456 77, 80, 164

Davis _v._ Comitti 1885 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539 14, =32=

Day _v._ Simpson 1865 18 C. B. (N. S.), 680 126

De Berenger _v._ Wheble 1819 2 Stark, 548 157

Delfe _v._ Delamotte 1857 3 K. and J., 581 86, 90

Delondre _v._ Shaw 1828 2 Sim., 237 42, 86

Dennison _v._ Ashdown 1897 13 T. L. R., 226 79

Dickens _v._ Lee 1844 8 Jur., 183 116

Dicks _v._ Brooks 1880 15 Ch. D., 22 95, 157, 159,

213

Dicks _v._ Yates 1881 18 Ch. D., 76 48, 52, 96,

=207=, =212=

Dobson, _ex parte_ 1892 12 N. Z. L. R., 171 41, 80

Dodsley _v._ Kinnersley 1761 Amb., 403 =115=, 116

Dodson _v._ Martin 1880 24 Sol. J., 572 46

Donaldson _v._ Beckett 1774 2 Bro. P. C., 129 6, 8, 61, 122,

152, 206, 220

Du Bost _v._ Beresford 1810 2 Camp., 511 174

Duck _v._ Bates 1884 13 Q. B. D., 843 =136=

Duck _v._ Mayen 1892 8 T. L. R., 339 142

Dupuy _v._ Dilkes 1879 48 L. J. Ch., 682 79, 172

EATON _v._ Lake 1888 20 Q. B. D., 378 77, 118, 134,

142

Ellis _v._ Marshall 1895 11 T. L. R., 522 175, 176, 180

Ellis _v._ Ogden 1894 11 T. L. R., 56 175, 176

Exchange Telegraph _v._ -- [1897], 2 Ch., 48 37, =219=

Central News

Exchange Telegraph _v._ -- [1896], 1 Q. B., 147 37, 219

Gregory

Eyre _v._ Carnan 1781 6 Bac. Abr., 509 59

Eyre _v._ Walker 1735 4 Burr., 2325 6

FAIRLIE _v._ Boosey 1879 4 A. C., 711 53, 134

Farina _v._ Silverlock 1858 4 K. and J., 650 168

Fishburn _v._ Hollingshead -- [1891], 2 Ch., 371 =199=, 200

Fisher _v._ Folds 1834 1 Jon. Ir. Ex., 12 35

Fitzbull _v._ Brooke 1844 2 D. and L., 477 144

Fores _v._ Johnes 1802 4 Esp., 97 152, 174

Forrester _v._ Walker 1741 4 Burr., 2331 220

Fourmat _v._ Pearson 1897 14 T. L. R., 82 14

French _v._ Day 1893 9 T. L. R., 548 141

Frowde _v._ Parish 1896 27 Ont. Rep., 526 77, 191

Fuller _v._ Blackpool -- [1895], 2 Q. B., 429 =124=, 126, 131

Winter Gardens

GALE _v._ Leckie 1817 2 Stark, 107 227

Gambart _v._ Sumner 1859 5 H. and N., 5 156

Gambart _v._ Ball 1863 14 C. B. (N. S.), 157, 182

306

Garland _v._ Gemmill 1887 Canada, 14 S. C. R., 16, 106, 108,

321 256

Gee _v._ Pritchard 1818 2 Swanst., 402 225, 226

Geissendorfer _v._ 1896 13 T. L. R., 91 170

Mendelssohn

Gibson _v._ Carruthers 1841 8 M. and W., 321 227

Gilbert _v._ Boosey 1889 _The Law Times_, =214=

Sept. 28, 1889

Gilbert _v._ 1894 11 T. L. R., 4 =218=

_Star_ Newspaper

Gillett _v._ Mawman 1808 1 Taunt., 140 230, 231

Goubard _v._ Wallace 1877 36 L. T. (N. S.), 47

704

Grace _v._ Newman 1875 L. R., 19 Eq., 623 =19=, 77

Granard _v._ Dunkin 1809 1 Ball and B., 207 225

Graves, _ex parte_ 1868 L. R., 3 Ch., 642 178

Graves, _ex parte_ Walker 1869 L. R., 4 Q. B., 715 54, 55, 168,

172, 173, 176,

182

Graves _v._ Ashford 1867 L. R., 2 C. P., 410 152, 157, 182

Graves _v._ Gorrie 1900 32 Ont. Rep., 266 192

Graves _v._ Mercer 1868 16 W. R., 790 156

Green _v._ 1899 [1899], 1 I. R., 386 180

_Irish Independent_

Grierson _v._ Jackson 1794 Irish T. R., 304 59

Griffin _v._ Kingston 1889 17 Ont. Rep., 660 =33=

Griffith _v._ Tower -- [1897], 1 Ch., 21 227

Publishing Company

Grimson _v._ Eyre 1804 9 Ves., 341 86

Guggenheim _v._ Leng 1896 12 T. L. R., 491 35, 183, 185

Guichard _v._ Mori 1831 9 L. J. (O. S.), Ch. 227

Gyles _v._ Wilcox 1740 2 Atk., 142 25, =115=

HALL, _in re_ 1899 24 Vict., L. R., 702 54

Hall _v._ Whittington 1892 18 Vict., L. R., 525 21

Hanbury _v._ Dumsday 1884 10 Vict., L. R. Eq., 32

272

Hanfstaengl _v._ American -- [1895], 1 Q. B., 347 198, =199=

Tobacco

Hanfstaengl _v._ Baines -- [1895], A. C., 20 182, 184

Hanfstaengl _v._ Empire -- [1894], 2 Ch., 1 167, 182

Palace

Hanfstaengl _v._ Empire -- [1894], 3 Ch., 109 182, 184, 196

Palace

Hanfstaengl _v._ Holloway -- [1893], 2 Q. B., 1 198, =199=, 203

Harris _v._ Smart 1889 5 T. L. R., 594 =49=, 94

Harrison _v._ Hogg 1794 2 Ves., 322 151

Hasker _v._ Wood 1885 54 L. J. Q. B., 419 144, 156

Hatton _v._ Kean 1859 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268 26, =63=, 123

Hayward _v._ Lely 1887 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418 26, 46, 51, 93

Hazlitt _v._ Templeman 1866 13 L. T. (N. S.), 593 77

Hedderwick _v._ Griffin 1841 3 D., 383 27

Henderson _v._ Maxwell 1876 4 Ch. D., 163 51

" " 1877 5 Ch. D., 892 48

Hereford, Bishop of, _v._ 1848 16 Sim., 190 70, 73

Griffin

Hildesheimer & Faulkner 1891 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452 =35=, 53, 74,

_v._ Dunn 149

Hildesheimer _v._ Faulkner -- [1901], 2 Ch., 552 179, 180

Hime _v._ Dale 1803 2 Camp., 27 _n_ 11, 46

Hodges _v._ Welsh 1840 2 Ir. Eq. Rep., 266 28, 70, 111

Hogg _v._ Kirby 1803 8 Ves., 215 46, 86, 87, 104,

=209=, 213, 229

Hogg _v._ Maxwell 1866 L. R., 2 Ch., 307 48

Hogg _v._ Scott 1874 L. R., 18 Eq., 444 47, 88, 92,

107, 119

Hole _v._ Bradbury 1879 12 Ch. D., 886 47, 54, 81, 90,

92, 93, 227

Hollinrake _v._ Truswell -- [1894], 3 Ch., 420 14, =32=, 36,

105

Holt _v._ Woods 1896 17 N. S. W. Eq., 36 80, 135

Hotten _v._ Arthur 1863 1 H. and M., 603 =18=, 19, 20,

94. 101, =106=

Houston _v._ Mills 1834 1 M. and Rob., 325 230

Howard _v._ Gunn 1863 32 Beav., 462 225

Howitt _v._ Hall 1862 6 L. T. (N. S.), 348 79, 80

Hutchins, _ex parte_ 1879 4 Q. B. D., 483 135

INGRAM _v._ Stiff 1859 5 Jur. (N. S.), 947 210

Isaacs _v._ Fiddemann 1880 49 L. J. Ch., 412 47, 90

JARROLD _v._ Heywood 1870 18 W. R., 279 98

Jarrold _v._ Houlston 1857 3 K. and J., 708 =24=, 88, 94,

100, 101,

=105=, 106,

113, =211=

Jefferys _v._ Baldwin 1753 Amb., 164 146

Jefferys _v._ Boosey 1854 4 H. L. C., 815 15, 36, 37, 40,

41, =42=, 43,

44, =76=, 77,

79, 80, 119,

164, 286, 218,

221

Jefferys _v._ Kyle 1856 18 D., 906 76

Johnson, _in re_ 1902 19 Pat. Des. and 31

Trade Mark Cases, 56

Johnson _v._ Egan 1880 24 Sol. J., 572 229

Johnson _v._ Newnes -- [1894], 3 Ch., 663 =12=, 52, =70=,

Johnson _v._ Wyatt 1863 2 De G. J. and S. 88

Jovatt _v._ Winyard 1820 1 Jac. and W., 394 =216=

KELLY _v._ Byles 1879 40 L. T. (N. S.), 623 207, =211=

Kelly _v._ Hodge 1873 29 L. T. (N. S.), 387 90

Kelly _v._ Hooper 1841 1 Y. and C. Ch. 86,99

Cas., 197

Kelly _v._ Hutton 1868 L. R., 3 Ch, 703 207, 229

Kelly _v._ Morris 1866 L. R., 1 Eq., 697 16, 17, 88, 101,

=105=, 106,

107, 108, 109,

113

Kelly _v._ Wyman 1869 17 W. R., 399 94

Kelly's Directories _v._ -- [1901], 1 Ch., 374 16, =85=, 95,

Gavin & Lloyds 140

Kenrick _v._ Lawrence 1890 25 Q. B. D., 99 168, 174, 175

Kenrick _v._ Danube 1891 39 W. R., 473 14, 37

Collieries

King _v._ Reed 1804 8 Ves., 223 23

Kyle _v._ Jefferys 1859 3 Macq., 611 77, 78

LACY _v._ Rhys 1864 4 B. and S., 873 47, 133, 134,

135

Lacy _v._ Toole 1867 15 L. T. (N. S.), 78

572

Lamb _v._ Evans -- [1893], 1 Ch., 218 12, =17=, 67,

=69=, 104,

105, =217=,

237

" " -- [1892], 3 Ch, 462 88

Latour _v._ Bland 1818 2 Stark, 382 78, 83, 119

Lauri _v._ Renad -- [1892], 3 Ch., 402 65, 79, =198=,

203

Lawrence _v._ Smith 1822 Jac., 471 46

Leader _v._ Purday 1849 7 C. B, 4 26, 50, 78, 93,

130,

Leader _v._ Strange 1849 2 C. and K., 1010 84

Lee _v._ Gibbings 1892 8 T. L. R., 773 215

Lee _v._ Simpson 1847 3 C B., 871 102, =123=,

136, 142

Lennie _v._ Pillans 1843 5 D., 416 =24=, 98, 105

Leslie _v._ Young -- [1894], A. C., 335 12, =22=, 98,

113, 237

Levi _v._ Champion 1887 3 T. L. R., 286 175

Levy _v._ Rutley 1871 L. R., 6 C. P., 523 =64=, 78

Lewis _v._ Chapman 1840 3 Beav., 133 87

Lewis _v._ Fullarton 1839 2 Beav., 6 =24=, 88, 89,

=106=, 107

Leyland _v._ Stewart 1876 4 Ch. D., 419 77, 134

Licensed Victuallers _v._ 1888 38 Ch. D., 139 207, 208

Bingham

Liverpool _v._ Commercial -- [1897], 2 Q. B., 1 53, 78, 82, 96

Press

London Printing _v._ Cox -- [1891], 3 Ch., 291 52, 78, 118,

172, 176,

185

London Stereoscopic _v._ 1888 5 T. L. R., 169 183

Kelly

Longman _v._ Winchester 1809 16 Ves., 269 16, 17, 24,

104, =105=,

109

Louie _v._ Smellie 1895 11 T. L. R, 515 =217=

Lover _v._ Davidson 1856 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182 26, 41, 50, 53,

78, 130

Low _v._ Routledge 1864 L. R, 1 Ch., 42 47, =51=, 53

Low _v._ Ward 1868 L. R, 6 Eq., 415 12, 44

Lucas _v._ Cooke 1880 13 Ch. D., 872 53, 80, 176

Lucas _v._ Williams -- [1892], 2 Q. B., 113 181

Lyon _v._ Knowles 1863 3 B. and S., 556 140

Lytton _v._ Devey 1884 52 L T. (N. S.), 121 225, 226

MACFARLANE _v._ Oak 1883 10 R., 801 46

Foundry

Mack _v._ Petter 1872 L. R., 14 Eq., 431 207

Macklin _v._ Richardson 1770 Amb., 694 37, 120, 121,

222

Mackmurdo _v._ Smith 1798 7 T. R., 518 151

Maclean _v._ Moody 1858 20 D., 1154 20, 62, 76

Macmillan _v._ Shamsal 1894 Ind. L. R., 19 116

Bomb., 557

Macmillan _v._ Suresh 1890 Ind. L. R., 17 =25=, 47, 51,

Chunder Deb Calc., 951 52, 77, 92

Macneill _v._ Williams 1847 11 Jur., 344 =23=, 87

Manners _v._ Blair 1828 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391 59

Maple _v._ Junior Army 1882 21 Ch. D., 369 13, 14, =19=,

and Navy Stores =34=, 51, 69,

87, 95, 97,

149, 238

Marchant _v._ Evans 1818 2 Moore, 14 230

Marsh _v._ Conquest 1864 17 C. B. (N. S.), 47, 121, 134,

418 135, 140

Marshall _v._ Broadhurst 1831 1 Tyrw., 348 227

Marshall _v._ Petty 1900 17 T. L. R., 501 34, 78, 154,

160

Martin, _in re_ 1884 10 Vict. L. R., 196 54

Martin _v._ Wright 1833 6 Sim., 297 113, 155, 156,

158, 213

Marzials _v._ Gibbons 1874 L. R., 9 Ch., 518 24, 65

Mason _v._ Murray -- Cited, 1 East, 360 26

Mathieson _v._ Harrod 1868 L. R., 7 Eq., 270 51

Matthewson _v._ Stockdale 1806 12 Ves., 270 15, 16, 104,

105, 109

Mavor _v._ Pyne 1825 3 Bing., 285 230

Mawman _v._ Gillett 1809 2 Taunt., 325 231

Mawman _v._ Tegg 1826 2 Russ., 385 83, 86, 88, 94,

99, 104, 105,

111

Maxwell _v._ Hogg 1867 L. R., 2 Ch., 307 14, 51, 207,

208

Maxwell _v._ Somerton 1874 22 W. R., 313 95, 102

Mayall _v._ Higbey 1862 1 H. and C., 148 180, 223

Mayhew _v._ Maxwell 1860 1 J. and H., 312 52, 72, 73

Melville _v._ -- [1895], 2 Ch., 531 174, 175, 176

_Mirror of Life_

Merryweather _v._ Moore -- [1892], 2 Ch., 518 =217=

Metzler _v._ Wood 1878 8 Ch. D., 606 46, 95, =211=

Millar _v._ Taylor 1769 4 Burr., 2303 =6=, 7, 37, 42,

59, 115, 117,

119, 206, 220,

221

Moffat & Paige _v._ Gill 1902 C. A., April 25 25, 26, 109

Monaghan _v._ Taylor 1886 2 T. L. R., 685 141

Moore _v._ Clarke 1842 9 M. and W., 692 157, 183

Morang _v._ Publishers 1900 32 Out. Rep., 393 53, 78, 188

Morison _v._ Moat 1851 9 Hare, 241 219

Morocco Bound Syndicate -- [1895], 1 Ch., 534 193

_v._ Harris

Morris _v._ Ashbee 1868 L. R., 7 Eq., 34 16, =17=, 18,

87, 105,

=107=, 108,

119

Morris _v._ Colman 1812 18 Ves., 437 228

Morris _v._ Kelly 1820 1 Jac. and W., 481 79, =121=

Morris _v._ Wright 1870 L. R., 5 Ch., 279 16, =108=, 109

Morton _v._ Copeland 1855 16 C. B., 517 78, 118, 143

Motte _v._ Falkner 1735 4 Burr., 2326 6

Moul _v._ Groenings -- [1891], 2 Q. B., 443 202, 203

Muddock _v._ Blackwood -- [1898], 1 Ch., 58 84, 86, 92

Munshi _v._ Mirza 1890 Ind. L. R., 14 116

Bomb., 586

Murray _v._ Benbow 1822 Jac., 474 _n_ 46

Murray _v._ Bogue 1852 1 Drew, 353 =26=, 51, 99,

102, 117

Murray _v._ Elliston 1822 5 B. and A., 804 114, 115, 121

Murray _v._ Heath 1831 1 B. and A., 804 159, 180

Murray _v._ MacFarquhar 1785 Mor. Dic., 8309 110

NEALE _v._ Harmer 1897 13 T. L. R., 209 =99=

Newman _v._ Pinto 1887 57 L. T. (N. S.), 31 46

Newton _v._ Cowie 1827 4 Bing., 234 34, 148, 151,

152, 157

Nicholls _v._ Parker 1901 17 T. L. R., 482 180, 185

Nicol _v._ Stockdale 1785 3 Swanst., 687 59

Nicols _v._ Pitman 1884 26 Ch. D., 374 11, 37, 38, 97,

=110=, 118,

222, 224

Nottage _v._ Jackson 1883 11 Q. B. D., 627 52, 57, 62, 65,

171, 174

Novello _v._ Sudlow 1852 12 C. B., 177 86, 97, 102

Novello _v._ James 1854 24 L. J. Ch., 111 87

OLIVER _v._ Oliver 1861 11 C. B. (N. S.), 225

139

Ollendorff _v._ Black 1850 4 De G. and Sm., 209 42

Osborne _v._ Donaldson 1765 2 Eden, 327 6

Oxford and Cambridge _v._ 1899 43 Sol. J., 570 102, 113

Gill

Oxford and Cambridge _v._ 1802 6 Ves., 689 59

Richardson

PAGE _v._ Townsend 1832 5 Sim., 395 150

Page _v._ Wisden 1869 20 L. T., 435 =31=, 51, 96

Palin _v._ Gathercole 1844 1 Coll., 565 225, 226

Parsons _v._ Chapman 1831 5 C. and P., 33 140, 141

Paton _v._ Duncan 1828 3 C. and P., 336 228

Perceval _v._ Phipps 1813 2 V. and B., 19 225, 226

Petty _v._ Taylor -- [1897], 1 Ch., 465 52, 63, 171,

176

Piddington _v._ Philip 1893 14 N. S. W. Rep., 95

Eq., 159

Pike _v._ Nicholas 1869 L. R., 5 Ch., 251 86, 95, =98=,

104, 105,

=108=

Pitman _v._ Hine 1884 1 T. L. R. 119

Pitt Pitts _v._ George -- [1896], 2 Ch., 866 201

Planché _v._ Braham 1837 4 Bing. N. C., 17 138

Planché _v._ Colburn 1831 5 C. and P., 58 228

Platt _v._ Button 1815 19 Ves., 447 87, 119

Platt _v._ Walter 1867 17 L. T. (N. S.), 11, 67, 206,

157 229

Pollard _v._ Photo Co. 1888 4 Ch. D., 345 172, 180, 220

Pope _v._ Curl 1741 2 Atk., 342 220, 225

Poplett _v._ Stockdale 1825 Ry. and M., 337 231

Poulton, _ex parte_ 1884 53 L. J. Q. B., 320 54

Powell _v._ Head 1879 12 Ch. D., 686 65, 79, 142

Power _v._ Walker 1814 4 Camp., 8 76, 77, 134,

164

Price's Patent Candles 1858 4 K. and J., 727 86

_v._ Bauwen

Priestley's Case -- 2 Mer., 437 46

Primrose Press _v._ 1886 2 T. L. R., 404 48

Knowles

Prince Albert _v._ Strange 1849 2 De G. and Sm., 37, 90, 117,

652 152, 172,

=216=, 219,

220, 221, 223

Prowett _v._ Mortimer 1856 2 Jur. (N. S.), 414 48, =209=, 210

QUEENSBERRY _v._ Shebbeare 1758 2 Eden, 329 79, 220

READE _v._ Bentley 1857 3 K. and J., 271 81, 227, 228,

229

" " -- 4 K. and J., 656

Reade _v._ Conquest 1861 9 C. B. (N. S.), 755 114, 120, 123,

206

" " 1862 11 C. B. (N. S.), 46, 102, 139

479

Reade _v._ Lacy 1861 1 J. and H., 524 101, 102

Reeve _v._ Gibson -- [1891], 1 Q. B., 144, 156

652

Reg _v._ Closs 1857 6 W. R., 109 180

Reichardt _v._ Sapte -- [1893], 2 Q. B., =128=, 139

308

Reid _v._ Maxwell 1886 2 T. L. R., 790 41

Reuter's Telegram Co. 1874 43 L. J. Ch., 661 =216=

_v._ Byron

Richardson _v._ Gilbert 1851 1 Sim. (N. S.), 336 71

Rippon _v._ Norton 1839 2 Beav., 63 81

Robb _v._ Green 1895 2 Q. B., 315 =218=

Roberts _v._ Bignell 1887 3 T. L. R., 552 =124=, 142

Robinson _v._ Wilkins 1805 8 Ves., 224 _n_ 87

Rock _v._ Lazarus 1872 L. R., 15 Eq., 104 52, 102, 152

Rooney _v._ Kelly 1861 14 Ir. C. L. R., 90, 229

158

Routledge _v._ Low 1868 L. R., 3 H. L, 100 40, =43=, 44,

Roworth _v._ Wilkes 1807 1 Camp., 94 34, 47, 97,

100, 110,

112, 151, 158

Rundell _v._ Murray 1821 Jac., 311 =24=, 87, 119,

164, 267

Russell _v._ Briant 1849 8 C. B., 836 140

Russell _v._ Smith 1848 12 Q. B., 217 47, =123=, 125,

126, 131. 133,

134, 136, 137,

140

SAUNDERS _v._ Smith 1838 3 My. and C., 711 =28=, 87,

=111=, 119

Saunders _v._ Will -- [1892], 2 Q. B., 18 144

Sayre _v._ Moore 1785 1 East, 361 _n_ 104, 112

Schauer _v._ Field -- [1893], 1 Ch., 35 203

Schlesinger _v._ Bedford 1890 63 L. T. (N. S.), 120

762

Schlesinger _v._ Turner 1890 63 L. T. (N. S.), 120

764

Schove _v._ Schmincké 1886 33 Ch. D., 546 48, 208

Scott _v._ Stanford 1867 L. R., 3 Eq., 718 20, =62=, 99,

101, =107=,

113

Seeley _v._ Fisher 1841 11 Sim., 581 213

Shackell _v._ Rosier 1836 2 Bing., N. C., 634 229

Shelley _v._ Bethell 1883 12 Q. B. D., 11 136

Shepherd _v._ Conquest 1856 17 C. B., 427 =64=, 67, 77,

80, 134

Sims _v._ Marryat 1851 17 Q. B., 281 79

Smiles _v._ Belford 1876 1 Tupp. App., 436 189

Smith _v._ Chatto 1874 31 L. T. (N. S.), 112

775

Smith _v._ Johnson 1863 4 Gif., 632 72

Southern _v._ Bailes 1894 38 Sol. J., 681 11, =24=

Southey _v._ Sherwood 1817 2 Meriv., 435 87, 119, 223

Spiers _v._ Brown 1858 31 L. T. (O. S.), =25=, 101, 116

Spottiswoode _v._ Clarke 1846 2 Phillips, 154 211

Stannard _v._ Harrison 1871 24 L. T. (N. S.), 62, 90, 148,

570 153

Stannard _v._ Lee 1871 L. R., 6 Ch., 346 15, 47, 148,

149

Stevens _v._ Benning 1855 6 De G. M. and G., 83, 227

223

Stevens _v._ Bradbury 1854 1 K. and J., 168 81

Stevens _v._ Brett 1864 10 L. T. (N. S.), 94

231

Stevens _v._ Wildy 1850 19 L. J. Ch., 190 78

Stewart _v._ Black 1846 9 D., 1026 92

Stiff _v._ Cassell 1856 2 Jur. (N. S.), 348 228

Stockdale _v._ Onwhyn 1826 5 B. and C., 173 46

Storace _v._ Longman 1788 2 Camp., 262 11, 75

Strahan _v._ Graham 1867 16 L. T. (N. S.), 87 79, 118

Strong _v._ Worskett 1896 12 T. L. R., 532 =35=

Stubbs _v._ Howard 1895 11 T. L. R., 507 =68=

Sweet _v._ Benning 1855 16 C. B., 459 12, 28, =69=,

73, 93, 97,

=111=

Sweet _v._ Cater 1841 11 Sim., 572 79, 80, 82, 83

Sweet _v._ Lee 1841 3 Man. and G., 452 230

Sweet _v._ Maughan 1840 11 Sim., 51 =28=, 86, 94

Sweet _v._ Shaw 1839 3 Jur., 217 =28=, =76=,

79, 111

TALBOT _v._ Judges 1887 3 T. L. R., 398 48, =208=

Taylor _v._ Bayne 1776 Mor. Dic., 8308 16

Taylor _v._ Neville 1878 26 W. R., 299 80, 82

Taylor _v._ Pillow 1869 L. R., 7 Eq., 418 79

Thomas _v._ Turner 1886 33 Ch. D., 292 27, 51

Thombleson _v._ Black 1837 1 Jur., 198 79, 228

Thompson _v._ Stanhope 1774 Amb., 737 225, 226

Thompson _v._ Symonds 1792 5 T. R., 41 151, 152, 154

Tinsley _v._ Lacey 1863 1 H. and M., 747 88, 98, 114,

116, 120, 123

Tipping _v._ Clarke 1843 2 Hare, 383 =218=

Tonson _v._ Collins 1760 1 W. Bl., 301 6, 206

Tonson _v._ Walker 1752 3 Swanst., 672 6, 12, 26, 115,

221

Toole _v._ Young 1874 L. R., 9 Q. B., 523 114, 120, 122,

123, =126=

Trade Auxiliary _v._ 1887 4 T. L. R., 130 71

Jackson

Trade Auxiliary _v._ 1889 40 Ch. D., 425 11, =21=,

Middlesborough =48=, 52,67,

=69=, 71,

72, 80, 82,

89, 99, 100

Tree _v._ Bowkett 1895 74 L. T. (N. S.),77 26, 64, 78, 80,

Troitzsch _v._ Rees 1887 3 T. L. R., 773 176

Trusler _v._ Murray 1789 1 East, 363 _n_

Tuck _v._ Canton 1882 51 L. j. Q. B., 82, 177

363

Tuck _v._ Continental 1887 3 T. L. R., 826 172

Tuck _v._ Priester 1887 19 Q. B. D., 629 172, 179, 180,

220

Turner _v._ Robinson 1860 10 Ir. Ch. R., 510 37, 39, 162,

169, 172, 184

" " 1860 10 Ir. Ch. R., 121 162, 169, 172,

184

WALCOT _v._ Walker 1802 7 Ves., 1 46

Walford _v._ Johnston 1846 20 D., 1160 20

Walker, _ex parte_ 1869 See Graves

Wall _v._ Taylor 1883 11 Q. B. D., 102 95, =124=, 131,

136, 143

Wallerstein _v._ Herbert 1867 16 L. T., 453 63

Walter _v._ Emmott 1885 54 L. J. Ch., 1059 207, =212=

Walter _v._ Howe 1881 17 Ch. D., 708 11, 48, =70=

Walter _v._ Lane -- [1900], A. C, 539 13, 15, =29=,

30, 31, 37,

62, =65=,

109, 139, 238

Walter _v._ Steinkopff -- [1892], 3 Ch., 489 95, =103=

Walthoe _v._ Walker 1736 4 Burr., 2326 6

Ward _v._ Beeton 1874 L. R., 19 Eq., 207 46, 207, 213,

229

Warne _v._ Lawrence 1886 34 W. R., 452 47

Warne _v._ Routledge 1874 L. R., 18 Eq., 497 83, 228

Warne _v._ Seebohm 1888 39 Ch. D., 73 90, 97, 113,

=114=, 120,

123

Webb _v._ Rose 1732 Amb., 694 =23=, 220

Weekes _v._ Williamson 1886 12 Vict. L. R., 483 104

Weldon _v._ Dicks 1878 10 Ch. D., 247 52, 53, 92,

119, 207

West _v._ Francis 1822 5 B. and A., 737 152, 156, 157,

172, 183, 184

White _v._ Geroch 1819 2 B. and A., 298 11, 12, 36, 38,

Whittingham _v._ Wooler 1817 2 Swanst., 428 112

Whitwood _v._ Hardman -- [1891], 2 Ch., 416 227

Wilkins _v._ Aikin 1810 17 Ves., 422 104, 105, 109,

112

Willis _v._ Curtois 1838 1 Beav., 189 83

Wilson _v._ Lake 1895 1 Vict., L. R., Eq., 104

127

Wood _v._ Boosey 1868 L. R., 3 Q. B., 223 113, 134

" " 1867 L. R., 2 Q. B., 340 26, 51, 78, 130

Wood _v._ Chart 1870 L. R., 10 Eq., 193 203, 204

Wooderson _v._ Tuck 1887 4 T. L. R., 57 174,175

Wright _v._ Goodlake 1865 3 H. and C, 540 94

Wright _v._ Tallis 1845 1 C. B., 893 46

Wyatt _v._ Barnard 1814 3 V. and B., 77 15, =21=, 25,

102, 117

YOUNG Duchess, _in re_ 1891 8 T. L. R., 41 54

CASES DECIDED IN THE UNITED STATES

AMBERG File _v._ Shea 1897 53 U. S. App., 449 =242=

American Trotting _v._ 1895 70 Fed. Rep., 237 239, 267

Gocher

Aronson _v._ 1886 28 Fed. Rep., 75 240, 241, 263,

Fleckenstein 270, 275, 297

Atwill _v._ Ferrett 1846 2 Blatchf., 39 270, 271, 290

BACKERS _v._ Gould 1849 7 How., 798 290

Baker _v._ Selden 1879 101 U. S. Rep., 99 237, 238, 239,

=242=

Baker _v._ Taylor 1848 2 Blatchf., 82 251, =257=,

261, 262

Banks _v._ M'Divitt 1875 13 Blatchf., 163 241, =258=,

278, 281, 282

Banks _v._ Manchester 1888 128 U. S. Rep., 244 241, 251, 272,

296

Bartlett _v._ Crittenden 1847 4 M'Lean, 301 262, 263, 299

Belford _v._ Scribner 1892 144 U. S. Rep., 488 253, 289, 291

Bennett _v._ Boston 1900 101 Fed Rep., 445 288

Bennett _v. Carr_ 1899 96 Fed. Rep., 213 253

Binns _v._ Woodruff 1821 4 Wash. C. Ct., 48 245

Black _v._ Allen 1890 42 Fed. Rep., 618 260, 262, 273,

291

" " 1893 56 Fed. Rep., 764 241, 244, =252=,

253, 270, 271,

274, 292

Black _v._ Ehrich 1891 44 Fed. Rep., 793 298

Bleistein _v._ Donaldson 1899 98 Fed. Rep., 608 246

Blume _v._ Spear 1887 30 Fed. Rep., 629 253, 281

Blunt _v._ Patten 1828 2 Paine, 397 262, 278

Bolles _v._ Outing 1899 175 U. S. Rep., 262 245, =256=, 257

" " -- 77 Fed. Rep., 966 290

Boucicault _v._ Fox 1862 5 Blatchf., 87 241, 263, 271,

296

Boucicault _v._ Hart 1875 13 Blatchf., 47 251, 260, 263,

296

Boucicault _v._ Wood 1867 2 Biss., 34 249, 260, 264,

293, 296

Brady _v._ Daly 1899 175 U. S. Rep., 148 287, 292

" " 1897 83 Fed. Rep., 1007 277, 280

Brightley _v._ Littleton 1888 37 Fed. Rep., 103 236, =237=, 239,

241, 242, 243,

283

Broder _v._ Zeno 1898 88 Fed. Rep., 74 266, 281

Bullinger _v._ MacKay 1879 15 Blatchf., 550 236, 239, 243,

270, 278, 283

Burnell _v._ Chown 1895 69 Fed. Rep., 993 282

Burrow-Giles _v._ Sarony 1884 111 U. S. Rep., 53 245, 256, 270

CALLAGHAN _v._ Myers 1888 128 U. S. Rep., 617 240, 251, 253,

=257=, 267,

273, 289

Carlisle _v._ Colusa 1893 57 Fed. Rep., 979 239

County

Carte _v._ Bailey 1874 64 Maine, 458 270, 273, 274,

299

Carte _v._ Duff 1885 25 Fed. Rep., 183 279, 287, 296

Carte _v._ Evans 1886 27 Fed. Rep., 861 =241=, 251,

=252=, 273,

274

Carte _v._ Ford 1883 15 Fed. Rep., 439 296

Chapman _v._ Ferry 1883 18 Fed. Rep., 539 251, 253

" " 1882 12 Fed. Rep., 693 289, 290

Chase _v._ Sanborne 1874 4 Cliff., 306 241, 251

Chicago Music _v._ 1884 19 Fed. Rep., 758 251

Butler

Child _v._ 1901 110 Fed. Rep., 527 290

_New York Times_

Chils _v._ Gronland 1890 41 Fed. Rep., 145 239, 282

Clayton _v._ Stone 1828 2 Paine, 382 236, =237=, 239,

242

Clemens _v._ Belford 1883 14 Fed. Rep., 728 297

Coffeen _v._ Brunton 1849 4 M'Lean, 516 243, =246=

Collender _v._ Griffith 1878 11 Blatchf., 212 246

Colliery Engineer Co. _v._ 1899 94 Fed. Rep., 152 271, =291=

United Correspondence

Schools

Connecticut _v._ Gould 1888 34 Fed. Rep., 319 240

Corbett _v._ Purday 1897 80 Fed. Rep., 901 244

Courier _v._ Donaldson 1900 104 Fed. Rep., 993 246

Cowen _v._ Banks 1862 24 How. Pr., 72 240, 267

Crowe _v._ Aiken 1870 2 Biss., 208 263, 264, 299

DALY _v._ Brady 1889 39 Fed. Rep., 265 =252=, 290

" " 1895 69 Fed. Rep., 285 292

Daly _v._ Palmer 1868 6 Blatchf., 256 281, 286, 291

Daly _v._ Walrath 1899 40 App. Div. N. Y., 264, 296, 299

220

Daly _v._ Webster 1892 1 U. S. App., 573 240, =252=,

281, 287

Davidson _v._ Wheelock 1886 27 Fed. Rep., 61 241

Davies _v._ Vories -- 42 S. W., 707 274

Dewight _v._ Appleton 1842 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 259

195

Dielman _v._ White 1900 102 Fed. Rep., 892 271

Doan _v._ American Book 1901 105 Fed. Rep., 772 298

Co.

Dodd _v._ Smith 1891 144 Pa., 340 298

D'Ole _v._ Kansas City 1899 94 Fed. Rep., 840 262

Star Co.

Donnelley _v._ Ivers 1882 20 Blatchf., 381 =252=

Drummond _v._ Altemus 1894 60 Fed. Rep., 338 297, 298

Drury _v._ Ewing 1862 1 Bond., 541 =242=, 283

EGBERT _v._ Greenberg 1900 100 Fed. Rep., 447 239, 267

Ehret _v._ Pierce 1880 18 Blatchf., 302 245, 246, 282

Elizabeth _v._ 1877 97 U. S. Rep., 126 289

Pavement Co.

Emerson _v._ Davis 1845 3 Story, 768 241, 243, 278,

279, 281

Estes _v._ Leslie 1886 27 Fed. Rep., 22 297

Estes _v._ Williams 1884 21 Fed. Rep., 189 296, 297

Ewer _v._ Coxe 1824 4 Wash. C. C., 487 251, 296

FALK _v._ Brett 1891 48 Fed. Rep., 678 245

Falk _v._ Curtis 1901 107 Fed. Rep., 126 290, 291

" " 1900 100 Fed. Rep., 77 290

" " 1900 98 Fed. Rep., 989 290

Falk _v._ Donaldson 1893 57 Fed. Rep., 32 245, 253, 276,

280, 281, 283

Falk _v._ Gast 1893 54 Fed. Rep., 890 259, 262, 289

" " 1891 48 Fed. Rep., 262 245, 251, 259

Falk _v._ Heffron 1893 56 Fed. Rep., 299 290

Falk _v._ Howell 1888 37 Fed. Rep., 202 276, 281, 283

Falk _v._ Schumacher 1891 48 Fed. Rep., 222 255, 293

Farmer _v._ Culvert 1872 5 Am. L. T. R., 168 280, 282

Farmer _v._ Elstner 1888 33 Fed. Rep., 494 279, 289

Fishel _v._ Lueckel 1892 53 Fed. Rep., 499 276, 277, 280,

291

Folsom _v._ Marsh 1841 2 Story, 100 =243=, 277, 279,

280, 284

French _v._ Kreling 1894 63 Fed. Rep., 621 262

French _v._ Maguire 1878 55 How. (N. Y.) Pr., 263, 299

471

GILMORE _v._ Anderson 1890 42 Fed. Rep., 267 289

" " 1889 38 Fed. Rep., 846 274, 278, 283

Goldmark _v._ Kreling 1888 35 Fed. Rep., 661 281

" " 1885 25 Fed. Rep., 349 299

Gottsberger _v._ Aldine 1887 33 Fed. Rep., 381 261

Gould _v._ Banks 1832 8 Wend., 562 240, 274

Gray _v._ Russell 1839 1 Story, 11 240, 241, 243,

270, 278, 279,

284

Greene _v._ Bishop 1858 1 Cliff., 186 243, 269, 279

HARPER _v._ Holman 1897 84 Fed. Rep., 224 291, 296

Harper _v._ Shoppell 1886 23 Blatchf., 431 276

Hefel _v._ Whitely 1893 54 Fed. Rep., 179 256

Hegemen _v._ Springer 1901 110 Fed. Rep., 374 290

Heine _v._ Appleton 1853 4 Blatchf. C. C., 12 240, 269, 271,

=272=, 293

Henderson _v._ Tompkins 1894 60 Fed. Rep., 758 240

Higgins _v._ Keuffel 1891 140 U. S. Rep., 428 246

Hill _v._ Epley 1858 31 Penn., 331 293

Hoertel _v._ Raphael Tuck 1899 94 Fed. Rep., 844 294

Holmes _v._ Donohue 1896 77 Fed. Rep., 179 263

Holmes _v._ Hurst 1898 174 U. S. Rep., 82 263, 296

Howell _v._ Miller 1898 91 Fed. Rep., 129 241, 280, 282

Hubbard _v._ Thompson 1882 14 Fed. Rep., 689 291

_ILLUSTRATED American_ 1892 Cited, U. S., 594 =256=

_v. New York Press_

Isaacs _v._ Daly 1875 39 N. Y., 511 244, 245

JACKSON _v._ Walkie 1886 29 Fed. Rep., 15 255

Jewellers' Mercantile 1898 155 N. Y., 241 251, =260=, 261,

Agency _v._ Jewellers' 262, 263, 296

Publishing Co.

Jewellers' Mercantile 1896 84 Hun., 12 251, 260

Agency _v._ Jewellers'

Publishing Co.

Johnson _v._ Donaldson 1880 3 Fed. Rep., 22 243, 278, 290

Johnson _v._ Klopsch 1890 88 Fed. Rep., 692 293

Jollie _v._ Jacques 1850 1 Blatchf., 618 241, 244, 251,

281

Jones _v._ Thoms 1843 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 299

408

KEENE _v._ Clarke 1867 5 Rob. (NY.), 38 263, 293

Keene _v._ Kimball 1860 16 Gray, 549 263, 266, 299

Keene _v._ Wheatley 1860 4 Phil. (Pa.), 157 262, 263, 274,

284

Kennedy _v._ McTammany 1888 33 Fed. Rep., 584 276

Kiernan _v._ Manhattan 1876 50 How. Pr., 194 262

Kipling _v._ Fenno 1900 106 Fed. Rep., 692 298

Koppel _v._ Downing -- 24 Wash. L. R., 342 269

LADD _v._ Oxnard 1896 75 Fed. Rep., 703 237, 239, 260,

261, 263, 277,

283

Larrowe _v._ O'Loughlin 1898 88 Fed. Rep., 896 263

Lawrence _v._ Dana 1869 4 Cliff, 1 241, 242, 251,

258, 273, 269,

271, 277, 279,

280, 284, 285,

289, 293

List Publishing Co. _v._ 1887 30 Fed. Rep., 772 281, 282

Keller

Little _v._ Gould 1851 2 Blatchf., 165 269, 271, 272,

273, 274, 291

Little _v._ Hall 1855 18 How., 165 240, 299

Littleton _v._ Oliver 1894 62 Fed. Rep., 597 254

MACKAYE _v._ Mallory 1882 12 Fed. Rep., 328 273

McDonald _v._ Hearst 1899 95 Fed. Rep., 656 292

M'Lean _v._ Flemming 1877 96 U. S. Rep., 245 277, 296

Maloney _v._ Foote 1900 101 Fed. Rep., 264 277

Martinetti _v._ Maguire 1867 1 Abb. U. S., 356 266

Mead _v._ West 1896 80 Fed. Rep., 380 241, 278, 281,

282, 283

Menendez _v._ Holt 1888 128 U. S. Rep., 514 293

Merrell _v._ Tice 1881 104 U. S. Rep., 557 251, 253, 296

Merriam _v._ Famous Shoe 1891 47 Fed. Rep., 411 297, 298

Co.

Merriam _v._ Holloway 1890 43 Fed. Rep., 450 297

Merriam _v._ Texas 1892 49 Fed. Rep, 944 298

Siftings

Mifflin _v._ Dutton 1901 107 Fed. Rep., 708 =256=, 263

Millet _v._ Snowden 1848 1 West L. J., 240 277

Morrison _v._ Pettibone 1897 87 Fed. Rep., 330 276, 277, =280=

Mott _v._ Clow 1897 53 U. S. App., 461 237, =238=, 239,

242,

246

Munro _v._ Smith 1890 42 Fed. Rep., 266 282

Mutual Advertising Co. 1896 76 Fed. Rep., 961 240, 271, 272,

282

_v._ Refo

NASH _v._ Lathrop 1886 142 Mass., 29 240

OERTEL _v._ Wood 1870 40 How. Pr., 10 299

Oertel _v._ Jacoby 1872 44 How., 179 299

Osgood _v._ Allen 1872 1 Holmes, 185 244

Osgood _v._ Aloe 1897 83 Fed. Rep., 470 251, 253, =256=,

260

PAIGE _v._ Banks 1871 7 Blatchf., 152 268

Palmer _v._ De Witt 1872 47 N. Y., 532 263, 264, 296,

299, 300

Parker _v._ Hulme 1849 1 West L. J., 240 277

Parkinson _v._ Lascelle 1875 3 Sawyer, 330 251

Parton _v._ Prang 1872 3 Cliff, 537 273, 296, 299,

300

Perris _v._ Hexamer 1878 99 V. S. Rep., 674 280

Pierce _v._ Werckmeister. 1896 72 Fed. Rep., 57 259, 263

Pierpont _v._ Fowle 1846 2 Wood, and Min., 23 267, 271

Press Publishing Co. _v._ 1896 73 Fed. Rep., 196 262, 270, 271,

Munroe 274 300

Pulte _v._ Derby 1852 5 M'L., 328 260, 273

REED _v._ Carusi 1845 72 Fed. Cas., No. 241, 290

11, 642; 8 L. R.,

411

Reed _v._ Holliday 1884 19 Fed. Rep., 325 277, 279, 291

Rees _v._ Peltzer 1874 75 Ill., 475 263, 296, 299

Richardson _v._ Miller 1877 3 L. and Eq. Rep. 246, 267

(Am.), 614 262, 294

Rigney _v._ Dalton 1896 77 Fed. Rep., 176

Rigney _v._ Raphael Tuck 1896 77 Fed. Rep., 173 294

Roberts _v._ Myers 1860 13 L. R. Mass., 398 244, 270

Rogers _v._ Jewett 1858 12 L. R., 339 291

Rosenbach _v._ Dreyfuss 1880 2 Fed. Rep., 217 247, 294

Ross _v._ Raphael Tuck 1898 91 Fed. Rep., 128 294

SANBORN _v._ Dakin 1889 39 Fed. Rep., 266 280, 282

Sarony _v._ Ehrich 1886 28 Fed. Rep., 79 291

Schreiber _v._ Thornton 1883 17 Fed. Rep., 603 245

Schumacher _v._ Wogram 1888 35 Fed. Rep., 210 =246=, 257

Schumacher _v._ Schwencke 1885 25 Fed. Rep., 466 271, 272

" " -- 23 Blatchf., 373 246

" " 1887 30 Fed. Rep., 690 277

Scoville _v._ Toland 1848 6 West Law, J., 84 243

Scribner _v._ Allen & Co. 1892 49 Fed. Rep., 854 251, 256, 293

Serrana _v._ Jefferson 1888 33 Fed. Rep., 347 282

Shook _v._ Daly 1875 49 How. Pr., 366 266

Shook _v._ Rankin 1875 6 Biss., 477 241, 263

Snow _v._ Laird 1900 98 Fed. Rep., 813 242, 245

Snow _v._ Mast 1895 65 Fed. Rep., 995 257

Social Register 1894 64 Fed. Rep., 270 296

Association _v._ Howard

Springer _v._ Falk 1894 20 U. S. App., 296 259, 276, 280,

283, 290, 292

Stephens _v._ Cady 1852 14 How., 528 273, 275

Stevens _v._ Gladding 1854 17 How., 447 273, 275, 289

Story _v._ Holcombe 1847 4 M'L., 306 277, 279, 283,

284, 285

Stowe _v._ Thomas 1853 2 Wall. Jr., 547 284, 286

Struve _v._ Schwedler 1857 4 Blatchf., 23 251

Stuart _v._ Smith 1895 68 Fed. Rep., 189 291

TAFT _v._ Stephens 1889 39 Fed. Rep., 781 294

Taylor _v._ Gilman 1885 24 Fed. Rep., 632 288, 290, 292

Thomas _v._ Lennox 1883 14 Fed. Rep., 849 =241=, 263,

=279=

Thompson _v._ Hubbard 1888 131 U. S. Rep., 123 251,259

Thornton _v._ Schreiber 1887 124 U. S. Rep., 612 290

" " -- 8 Sup. Ct., 618 288, 290, 292

Tompkins _v._ Halleck 1882 133 Mass., 32 263, 299

Trow _v._ Boyd 1899 97 Fed. Rep., 586 291, 292

WALL _v._ Gordon 1872 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. 262

(N. Y.), 349

Webb _v._ Powers 1847 2 Woodb. and M., 497 273, 277, 282,

283

Werckmeister _v._ Springer 1894 63 Fed. Rep., 808 256, 263, 273,

274

West _v._ Lawyers 1896 51 U. S. App., 216 240, 251, 278

" " 1894 64 Fed. Rep., 360 282, 289, 296

Wheaton _v._ Peters 1834 8 Pet., 591 237, 240, 251,

268, 296, 299

Wheeler _v._ Cobbey 1895 70 Fed. Rep., 487 292

Williams _v._ Smythe 1901 110 Fed. Rep., 961 291

Wood _v._ Abbott 1866 5 Blatchf. C. C., 325 245

YUENGLING _v._ Schile 1882 12 Fed. Rep., 97 246, 247, 248,

269, 273

PART I

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE DOMINIONS OF THE

CROWN.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

The history of copyright has been exhaustively dealt with by Mr.

Copinger, Mr. Scrutton, and Mr. Drone in their respective treatises on

the subject, and as a detailed account of the evolution of the law of

literary and artistic property is of little value to the practitioner

except as academic knowledge, I propose merely to pass briefly in

review the various epochs through which the author and his publisher

have passed in their struggle to obtain from the public what they

consider to be the just and adequate remuneration for their labours.

For a complete historical introduction to the law of copyright I

cannot do better than refer to Mr. Birrell's delightful lectures.[1]

[Sidenote: The Royal Prerogative.]

The first record which we have of any monopoly in the reproduction of

literary work is in the exercise of the alleged prerogative of the

Crown to control the printing-press. No book whatsoever was allowed to

be printed without a licence or grant of monopoly from the Crown. One

of the principal objects in the exercise of this prerogative was the

prevention of the dissemination of religious doctrines contrary to the

accepted faith.

[Sidenote: The Company of Stationers.]

[Sidenote: The Star Chamber.]

Henry VIII. created the Company of Stationers to supervise and

control the publication of books. This company made various rules and

regulations as to the printing of books, and from them licences could

be obtained by an author to print his copy. The Stationers' Company

was first incorporated in the reign of Philip and Mary in 1556. The

Crown enforced its prerogative and the rules of the Stationers'

Company by means of the Court of Star Chamber, which from time to

time passed various decrees, and punished offenders by fine and

imprisonment.

[Sidenote: The germ of Copyright.]

[Sidenote: Licences.]

By this means the Crown until 1640 exercised an unlimited jurisdiction

over the press. In this there was no recognition of a right of

property in the author of a work, but merely an enforcement of the

royal prerogative to control the press. Incidentally, however, a kind

of property sprang up, since the Stationers' Company in granting

licences recognised the right of the author or his assignee to his

copy. Licences were granted to those who showed that they had a right

in the manuscript, and all others were prohibited from infringing the

monopoly. An entry in the records of the Stationers' Company in 1562,

for instance, enacts "That if it be found any other has a right to

any of the copies, then the licence touching such of the copies so

belonging to another shall be void."

[Sidenote: The Long Parliament.]

When the Star Chamber was abolished in 1640 the two Houses made an

ordinance prohibiting printing unless the book was first licensed

and entered in the register of the Stationers' Company, and further

prohibiting printing without the consent of the owner.

[Sidenote: Licensing Statute.]

At the Restoration a licensing statute[2] was passed similarly

prohibiting printing without licence and without the consent of the

owner. The statute finally expired in 1694.

On the expiry of the licensing statute, authors and publishers thought

that all protection for literary work was gone, and made strenuous

efforts for new legislation. Bills were brought into Parliament in

1703 and 1706, and finally in 1709 the copyright statute of Anne

became law.

[Sidenote: 8 Anne, c. 19. The beginning of Statutory Copyright.]

The Act of Anne created for the first time a statutory property in

books. The author of any book and his assignee or assigns were given

the sole liberty of printing and reprinting such book for the term of

fourteen years from publication "and no longer," and if at the end

of that period the author was still living, then such right returned

to the author for another term of fourteen years. The Act provided

that an offender should forfeit pirated copies and sheets to the

proprietor of the copyright, who was enjoined to "forthwith damask

and make waste paper of them." The Act further imposed a penalty of

one penny for every sheet found in the offender's possession, one

half of the penalties to go to the Crown and the other half to any

person who should sue for the same. The Act made registration in

the Register Book of the Company of Stationers before publication a

condition precedent to an action for the infringement of any book. A

provision was made in this Act for an adjustment of the price of books

by complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and

others, if booksellers or printers set too high a price upon their

publications. Provision was also made for the delivery of nine copies

at the warehouse of the Stationers' Company for the use of various

libraries.

[Sidenote: 41 Geo. III., ch. 107.]

The Act of Anne was amended in some particulars in 1801 by 41 Geo.

III. c. 107. This Act gave the proprietor of the copyright an action

of damages against an offender as well as providing forfeiture and

penalties.

[Sidenote: 54 Geo. III., ch. 156.]

The Act of Anne was again amended in 1814 by 54 Geo. III. c. 156. This

latter statute extended the period of copyright to twenty-eight years

certain, and the residue of the author's life thereafter.

[Sidenote: Copyright at Common Law.]

[Sidenote: Injunctions in Chancery.]

After the passing of the statute of Anne those booksellers who were

in the habit of purchasing and publishing authors' manuscripts were

not satisfied with the limited protection accorded to them by that

Act. They discovered, by the aid no doubt of legal advice, that a

further protection might be secured by setting up a common law right

of literary property which would ensure not merely a paltry term of

twenty-eight years, but a perpetual monopoly. The result of this

discovery led to half a century of litigation between the authors'

booksellers and those other smaller booksellers who contended that

they might without licence print those books in which the statutory

from 1735 there is a series of cases in Chancery in which a common law

right in published books was undoubtedly recognised and a preliminary

injunction granted, notwithstanding that the period of protection

given by 8 Anne, c. 19, had expired.[3]

[Sidenote: _Tonson_ v. _Collins_.]

[Sidenote: A collusive action.]

These injunctions appear to have been acquiesced in, and the cases

did not proceed to hearing. In 1760, in the case of _Tonson_ v.

_Collins_,[4] the great question of common law right was argued at

law before Lord Mansfield, C. J. The action was in respect of the

_Spectator_, the statutory copyright in which had expired. It was

twice argued before Lord Mansfield, who then ordered that it should

stand over for further argument before all the twelve judges. No

judgment was ever given in the case. Before it could be argued before

the whole Court, information reached the judges that the action was

collusive, brought for the purpose of obtaining a precedent to support

the contention of the authors' men. The Court refused to proceed

further with the cause.

[Sidenote: _Osborne_ v. _Donaldson_.]

[Sidenote: _Millar_ v. _Taylor_.]

[Sidenote: _Donaldson_ v. _Beckett_.]

It was not long, however, until the question was again raised. In 1765

Messrs. Osborne & Millar, assignees of the copyright in Thomson's

"Seasons," filed their Bills in Chancery against Donaldson, an

Edinburgh bookseller, who had, without their authority, reprinted

the book after the statutory copyright had expired.[5] A preliminary

injunction was obtained, but subsequently dissolved. Lord Chancellor

Northington said it was a point of so much difficulty and consequence

that he should not determine it at the hearing, but should send it

to law for the opinion of the judges. The question therefore again

came to law, and, in _Millar_ v. _Taylor_,[6] was argued at great

length before Lord Mansfield and Justices Aston, Willis and Yates.

The authors' men were victorious. The Court decided (Yates, J.,

dissenting) that there was copyright at common law, and that the

period of protection thereunder was not cut down by the statute of

Anne. This great victory, however, afforded but a short-lived triumph

to literary men. In 1774, in _Donaldson_ v. _Beckett_,[7] the matter

came before the House of Lords on appeal from an order in Chancery,

with the result that the decision in _Millar_ v. _Taylor_[8] was

overruled. In this case all the judges were consulted. Eleven

consulted judges gave their opinion. The questions put to the judges,

and the answers given by them, are as follows:

[Sidenote: Opinions of the judges.]

1. Whether at common law an author of any book or literary composition

had the sole right of first printing and publishing the same for sale,

and might bring an action against any person who printed, published,

and sold the same without his consent?

Eight answered Yes.

One answered No.

Two answered That an action would

only lie if the MS.

were taken by

fraud or violence.

2. If the author had such right originally did the law take it away

upon his printing or publishing such book or literary composition, and

might any person afterward reprint and sell for his own benefit such

book or literary composition against the will of the author?

Seven answered No.

Four answered Yes.

3. If such action would have lain at common law, is it taken away

by the statute of 8th Anne? And is an author by the said statute

precluded from every remedy except on the foundation of the said

statute and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby?

Six answered Yes.

Five answered No.

4. Whether the author of any literary composition and his assigns had

the sole right of printing and publishing the same in perpetuity by

the common law?

Seven answered Yes.

Four answered No.

5. Whether this right is in any way impeached or taken away by the

statute of 8th Anne?

Six answered Yes.

Five answered No.

[Sidenote: Decision of the House of Lords.]

[Sidenote: Defeat of the Authors' booksellers.]

The House of Lords on a division, which included several lay members

of the House, decided by 22 to 11 against the contention that the

common law right survived the statute of Anne and was unrestricted by

it. So the authors and their champions the booksellers were finally

defeated, and had to remain satisfied with the term of protection

afforded to them by statute.

[Sidenote: Relief for the Universities.]

The Universities obtained from Parliament statutory relief against the

decision in _Donaldson_ v. _Beckett_. In 1775, the Act of 15 Geo. III.

c. 53 was passed giving them a perpetual copyright in all books which

might be bequeathed to them. This right they still retain.

[Sidenote: 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.]

In 1842 the present literary Copyright Act was passed and the statute

of Anne and the two amending statutes of Geo. III. repealed. The

principal reform is the extension of the term of protection to a

period of forty-two years certain, or for the author's life and seven

years if that should prove longer. Perhaps the other most important

change (it cannot decently be called a reform) is the reduction of

registration at Stationers' Hall to a mere useless and troublesome

technicality. Instead of being as formerly a condition precedent

to protection, and therefore a useful index from which one could

ascertain whether a book was copyright or not, it is now made merely

a condition precedent to action, and registration can be effected the

same day as that on which a writ is issued.

[Sidenote: Engravings.]

Meanwhile the engravers as well as the authors had been working for

the proper protection of their art. In 1734 they first obtained a

statute which, together with the amending statutes passed in 1766,

1776, and 1836 respectively, still contains the law of copyright in

engravings, prints, etchings, and similar productions.

[Sidenote: Sculpture.]

In 1798 the sculptors obtained an Act. This was repealed by another

Act obtained in 1813. This latter Act still contains the whole law as

to copyright in sculpture.

[Sidenote: Dramatic Work.]

[Sidenote: Musical Work.]

In 1833 authors of dramatic work obtained from Parliament an exclusive

right to perform their plays whether published or unpublished. By the

Literary Copyright Act, 1842, the provisions of that Act are made

applicable to performing rights in dramatic work, and performing

rights are still regulated by both these Acts, which together contain

the law on this subject. The Literary Copyright Act, 1842, also

applied the provisions of both these Acts to performing rights in

musical compositions hitherto unprotected in this respect. As regards

musical composition, the law is amended by two subsequent Acts which

must be read with the two older Acts.

[Sidenote: Lectures.]

In 1835 an Act was passed for the protection of copyright in lectures.

This Act, although still in force, has become a dead letter since the

requisite notice to two Justices of the Peace is troublesome, and

lectures receive full protection from copying by common law and under

the Literary Copyright Act, 1842. The Lectures Act never purported to

give anything in the nature of a performing or lecturing right, but

merely a protection from unauthorised reproduction in print.

[Sidenote: Paintings, Drawings, and Photographs.]

The artists were the last to obtain protection for their work. It was

not until 1862 that an Act was passed giving statutory protection to

paintings, drawings, and photographs. This Act contains the present

law on the "Fine Arts."

[Sidenote: International Acts.]

[Sidenote: The Berne Convention.]

[Sidenote: The Paris Convention.]

From 1844 onwards there is a series of Acts known as the International

works published in certain foreign countries. The last and principal

international copyright Act is the International Copyright Act, 1886.

That Act was passed in view of the Berne Convention of 1887 which

was then in contemplation. The Berne Convention is an international

agree that, subject to its terms, a work first published in any one

of those states shall have copyright in all the others. The Berne

Convention is now amended by the Paris Convention, 1898, and read

together they form the present international agreement.

[Sidenote: Colonial Acts.]

There are several statutes dealing with the colonies dating from 1847.

CHAPTER II

WHAT BOOKS ARE PROTECTED

The following books are protected by statute throughout the

British Dominions:[9]

1. Every original book:[10]

2. First published within the British Dominions:[11]

3. [The author of which is a British subject or resident within

the British Dominions at the time of first publication:[12]]

4. Which is innocent:[13]

5. And has been registered before action:[14]

6. For 42 years, or the author's life and 7 years, whichever

period is the longer.[15]

SECTION I.--WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL BOOK.

=Definition of a Book.=--"Book" is defined by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec.

2, "to mean and include every volume, part or division of a volume,

pamphlet, sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, chart, or plan

separately published."

As an exhaustive definition this is of little value. It only indicates

what the outward visible form of the "book" must be, and gives no

indication of the nature or quality of the literary matter which it

must contain. Even as a guide to the form it is defective, since it is

only a definition by example and not exhaustively descriptive. In the

absence of an accurate statutory definition of a "book," the Courts

have given a very wide interpretation to the term, and both as to the

form and the matter have strained the ordinary dictionary meaning of

the word to the uttermost. In the light of the decided cases a "book"

might be defined as _original literary matter in such tangible form as

readily conveys ideas or information to the mind of a reader_.

=Essential Elements of a Book.=--There are three essential elements

which must be found in every book, viz.:

I. A certain physical form.

II. Literary matter.

III. Originality.

I. _Physical Form._--The form of the book need not necessarily

constitute what in common parlance is known as a book or volume.

Thus a single sheet of music[16] or a printed leaflet such as an

application form[17] are both books within the meaning of the

In one case[18] it was held that a newspaper was not a book, but

that decision was not followed,[19] and there can now be no doubt

that a newspaper comes within the definition of a book as a sheet of

letterpress.[20]

The form must be adapted for conveniently conveying to the mind of a

reader the intellectual matter which the book contains. It will not

be sufficient that it can possibly be used for conveying intellectual

matter to the mind, it must be conveniently adapted for that purpose.

Thus music in the form of a perforated scroll for use in an æolian

or pianola is not a "book,"[21] for although it can be deciphered

and read by the eye no one in his senses would use it instead of

an ordinary sheet of music. On the other hand literary matter may

nevertheless be in "book" form although it requires a special training

to decipher it. For instance a story written in shorthand characters

is in book form,[22] and no doubt also a story impressed in raised

characters for the blind.[23]

The substance on which the literary matter is depicted and the manner

of depicting it are probably immaterial; but presumably a "book"

must be at least _ejusdem generis_ as an ordinary printed volume or

leaflet. It must be "something in the nature of a book."[24] Thus

although copies in ordinary manuscript[25] or even engraved on thin

slips of ivory would be in "book" form, an epitaph on a tombstone

probably would not.

The meaning of the words "separately published" in section 2 is by

no means clear. They do not mean that the matter in which copyright

is claimed must be issued physically separate from any non-copyright

literary matter. In the statute of Anne the words "separately

published" are not used in the definition of a book, but it was

nevertheless argued that a "book" must be entirely the original

work of the author and not bound up with other matter. In _Cary_ v.

_Longman_ Lord Kenyon rejected such an argument. In giving judgment he

said:

"The courts of justice have long been labouring under an error if

an author have no copyright in any part of a work unless he have

an exclusive right to the whole book."[26]

Under the statute of Victoria parts of a book bound up with

non-copyright matter have frequently been protected; notes to

non-copyright works,[27] illustrations to non-copyright works,[28] a

small portion of a serial story,[29] a small part of a time table,[30]

have all been protected. Clearly therefore a person may have copyright

in a book although he has not copyright in every part of it.[31]

_In Johnson_ v. _Newnes_[32] Romer, J., takes the view that

"separately" published means clearly distinguishable. He says:

"Now in my opinion if you find in a volume separate parts, and

distinguished or perfectly distinguishable from the other parts,

and the volume is published, each part that is separate and

clearly distinguished in the volume itself is separately published

within the meaning of section 2."

If we accept this as correct we exclude the case of a revised edition

of an old work, the corrections and additions to which forming the new

work are not clearly distinguishable from the old. I am inclined to

think that the real explanation and meaning of "separately published"

is that it does not apply to "volume, part, or division of a volume"

at all, but only to "sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, chart,

or plan" which are to be protected, even although they are "separately

published," _i. e._ not bound up into a volume. It was no doubt

inserted as declaratory of the case law under the statute of Anne,

which laid down that a single printed sheet was a "book" within the

meaning of the Act.

II. _Literary Matter._--No literary merit or great labour is required

to be shown. Lord Halsbury, L. C., in _Walter_ v. _Lane_,[33] referring

to the verbatim reports of Lord Rosebery's speeches which were the

subject-matter of that action, said:

"Although I think in these compositions (_i. e._ the work of the

stenographer) there is literary merit and intellectual labour, yet

the statute seems to me to require neither--nor originality either

in thought or language ... the right in my view is given by the

statute to the first producer of a book, whether that book be wise

or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, of literary merit, or of no

merit whatever."[34]

In many of the cases great stress was laid in argument at the bar on

the preamble of the Copyright Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. The preamble

runs as follows:

"Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to copyright,

and to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary

works of lasting benefit to the world...."

From this it is argued that the Act intends to protect only those

works which are likely to prove a substantial addition to the world's

literature. Jessel, M. R., in his judgment in _Maple_ v. _Junior Army

and Navy Stores_,[35] points out the fallacy of this argument:

"The Act does not say that it is expedient to afford greater

encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting

benefit to the world, and to amend the law of copyright relating

thereto, but that it is expedient to amend the law of copyright

generally, merely adding the principal reason for doing so. There

is therefore nothing in the preamble to cut down the enacting

part, even if the enacting part had not been clear."[36]

Road-books,[37] directories,[38] tradesmen's catalogues,[39]

mercantile statistics,[40] telegraph codes,[41] time tables,[42]

verbatim reports of speeches[43] are all books within the meaning of

the Act.

It is quite immaterial for what purpose the matter was composed or

published. Personal correspondence,[44] advertisements,[45] and a

mining report[46] are all subjects of copyright if published.

There must be some composition or arrangement of words, figures,

sentences, or paragraphs which by itself will convey to the mind

of the reader some intelligible proposition.[47] There cannot be

opinion: there is no composition or arrangement. Neither can there

be copyright in a pattern sleeve[49] or the face of a barometer,[50]

because both are really instruments to be used in conjunction with

something else, and although there may be words and sentences on them,

by themselves they convey no intelligible proposition to the reader.

Probably a drunken scrawl, absolutely unintelligible, would not be

protected. A jury having found that such a document was not a literary

composition, the Court of Appeal refused to interfere with their

verdict.[51]

The illustrations in a book are protected as part of the book,[52] and

a number of drawings bound up together without any letterpress would

be protected as a book,[53] compliance with the provisions of the

artistic Copyright Acts being in such a case unnecessary; but a single

drawing or engraving separately issued can only be protected under the

artistic Acts.

A map, whether bound in a volume or separately issued, is a book

within the meaning of the Literary Copyright Act, and will be

protected thereunder.[54]

III. _Originality_ as an essential element of a book means that the

composition in the "book" must not have been copied from some other

literary composition in "book" form. Originality does not necessarily

imply an original composition on the part of the author.[55] Copyright

is given not necessarily to the first composer, but to the first

producer in "book" form of a literary composition.[56] Thus a book

would be an original book if the literary matter contained therein

were taken by the author verbatim from the oral utterances of a public

speaker,[57] or probably if copied from some ancient monument or

mural writing. It would not, however, be original if the author had

merely transcribed the literary matter from some public manuscripts,

even although difficult of access.[58] Again, originality does not

necessarily imply novelty. Another book exactly the same in every

respect, word for word, may have been previously published, and yet

a later book will be original if derived from common sources, and

not copied from the earlier book. Thus two mathematicians may have

independently made the same calculations,[59] two travellers may have

made a chart of the same island or district,[60] or two reporters may

have taken shorthand reports of the same speech.[61] In each case

there would be independent copyright,[62] and the later book, even

although published ten years after the first, would be original.

Composition may consist in composition in the ordinary sense of

piecing together words, figures, sentences, and paragraphs, in order

to convey certain intellectual ideas, or it may consist in the

arrangement of material, as in the case of directories, lists of

statistics, &c. Sometimes part may be copied and part may be original,

as in the case of new editions,[63] translations,[64] abridgments,[65]

selections from non-copyright authors,[66] precedents of

conveyancing, &c.[67] The new matter only is the subject of copyright.

[Sidenote: Road Books.]

=Examples of what are Books.=--Road-books[68] were among the first

works in the protection of which by the Courts it was recognised

that copyright did not necessarily depend on the evidence of any

high mental qualities in the composition. In 1786 an injunction was

granted to restrain the piracy of "Paterson's Road-Book."[69] Lord

Chancellor Loughborough in his judgment said that a book in order to

acquire copyright did not require to be an operation of the mind like

the "Essay on Human Understanding." There might be copyright even

although the subject-matter lay _in medio_, so that every man with

eyes could trace it, and the whole merit of the work depended upon the

accuracy of the observation. In 1776 the Court of Session in Scotland

protected a "Traveller's Pocket-Book," which contained nothing but a

mere list of stages and their distances.[70] The compiler of such a

work may arrive at the same, or nearly the same, result as some other

compiler working over the same country, but if each has made his own

compilation, "counting the milestones for himself,"[71] he will have

[Sidenote: Directories.]

Directories[72] soon followed road-books in their claim for

protection. Lord Chancellor Erskine in 1806 hesitated somewhat,

"thinking it dangerous to carry this doctrine of copyright too far,"

but ultimately decided that an East India calendar or directory[73]

containing the names and appointments on the Indian establishment,

obtained with considerable labour and expense from the repositories

in India House, was the subject of copyright. This decision was

followed by Lord Chancellor Eldon in 1809 in the case of "A

Court Calendar."[74] In 1861 a street directory of Birmingham was

protected,[75] and in 1866 "Kelly's Post Office London Directory."[76]

In this last-mentioned case it was suggested in defence that the

various residents had given their names for public use, and that

therefore any one could copy them; this contention, however, was

rejected, and it was held that the information contained in a

directory was similar to that in a road-book or map; it was open to

all mankind, but that he who collected and described it was entitled

to prevent any one else from taking the results of his labours. In

_Morris_ v. _Ashbee_,[77] a trade directory, called "The Business

Directory of London," was protected. This work contained the names

and occupations of merchants and traders carrying on business in or

about London. Those traders who paid the proprietor of the directory

one shilling annually were entitled to have their names printed in

capital letters, and a further payment entitled them to "extra lines"

descriptive of their vocations. The defendants took from this work the

names in capital letters and the "extra lines," and contended that

they were entitled to do so; but it was held that the payment by the

several persons whose names were inserted had not the effect of making

the names and descriptions when inserted common property, and that

as the plaintiff had incurred the labour and expense of getting the

necessary information and arranging it, he was entitled to protection.

[Sidenote: Trade Directory.]

[Sidenote: Sheet of Advertisements.]

In _Lamb_ v. _Evans_[78] the defendants had copied extensively from

a trade directory. The directory consisted of a list of tradesmen

in various localities. In some cases their names and addresses only

were entered, and in others more elaborate advertisements containing

descriptions of articles in which the advertiser dealt. The entries

in the directory were classified under headings, giving short

descriptions of the particular trades; each separate heading was

arranged so that the proper catch-words occurred first in alphabetical

order, and each heading was repeated in three other languages

after the English heading. The Court of Appeal held that although

the plaintiffs had no copyright in each individual entry, they had

labour both as regards the composition of the headings themselves and

their collocation and concatenation in the book.[79] Their Lordships

were also of opinion, although they said it was unnecessary to decide

the question, that there was copyright in the mass of advertisements

as collected and arranged. Lindley, L. J., said:

"I do not see myself the difficulty in the publishers having a

in his having a copyright in one advertisement, because, as Mr.

Justice Chitty pointed out, that might prevent the advertiser from

republishing his advertisements in another paper, which is absurd.

But to say that it follows from that that the proprietor, say of

the _Times_, has no copyright in a sheet of advertisements so that

he cannot restrain anybody from copying that sheet appears to me a

very different proposition."[80]

[Sidenote: Catalogues.]

Tradesmen's catalogues, consisting of lists descriptive or otherwise

of the articles in which they deal, have been often attacked as

being devoid of literary merit. In _Hotten_ v. _Arthur_[81] the

plaintiff's copyright in a descriptive catalogue of old books which

he had in stock was challenged. This catalogue was not a mere list

of the books by name, but contained short notices of the contents

and general nature of the various volumes. Page Wood, V. C., found

no difficulty in deciding that such a catalogue was the subject of

advertising the plaintiff's stock-in-trade, and were not themselves

offered for sale. In _Cobbett_ v. _Woodward_[82] the doctrine laid

down by Page Wood, V. C., received a check. In that case the plaintiff

had published a catalogue containing numerous engravings and

illustrations of designs and articles of furniture which were sold by

his firm. Lord Romilly, M. R., refused to grant an injunction against a

rival tradesman who, in a similar publication, appropriated at least

fifty of the plaintiff's illustrations, and in his judgment he said:

[Sidenote: Advertisements.]

"But at the last it always comes round to this, that there is no

another, you do him no wrong, unless in doing so you lead the

public to believe that you sell the articles of the person whose

advertisement you copy."[83]

The next case in which this question came before the Courts was

_Grace_ v. _Newman_.[84] The book infringed was a volume containing

lithographic sketches of monumental designs, and a little letterpress.

The sole object of the book was to serve as an advertisement in the

plaintiff's business of "Cemetery Stone and Marble Mason." Hall,

V. C., granted an injunction, evading _Cobbett_ v. _Woodward_[85]

and following _Hotten_ v. _Arthur_.[86] In 1882 _Cobbett_ v.

_Woodward_[87] was expressly overruled in the Court of Appeal in

the case of _Maple & Co._ v. _Junior Army and Navy Stores_.[88] The

plaintiffs published an illustrated catalogue consisting almost

entirely of engravings of furniture with short descriptions and

prices. The catalogue was prepared by selecting articles of furniture

which were drawn by artists in their employment and then engraved. The

Court of Appeal sustaining the opinion of Hall, V. C., in the Court

below, held that the catalogue was the subject of copyright as a book.

Jessel, M. R., said:

"The case which has done all the mischief is _Cobbett_ v.

_Woodward_.[89]... I think that is not law. I am not aware that

the use to which a proprietor puts his book makes any difference

in his rights. His copyright gives him the exclusive right of

multiplying copies, and he may use them as he pleases. I think,

therefore, that _Cobbett_ v. _Woodward_[90] will not bear legal

examination."[91]

[Sidenote: Alphabetical Catalogue of Tradesmen's Goods.]

In _Collis_ v. _Cater_[92] North, J., protected a catalogue of

medicinal articles which the plaintiff kept for sale. The articles

were arranged by their common names in alphabetical order under

various headings and sub-headings. The learned judge strongly

negatived the contention that a tradesman's catalogue would only be

protected when, as in _Hotten_ v. _Arthur_,[93] some amount of skill or

literary merit was shown. He said:

"A distinction is made between copyright in a large catalogue

by a clever author which gives a great deal of information, and

is interesting to persons who read it, and a catalogue like

the plaintiffs, which is nothing whatever but a simple list of

certain articles described by their common names, which every

one is entitled to use with respect to them with the addition of

the prices at which they are sold.... In one way or another a

man engaged in preparing a catalogue of this sort has incurred

labour in its preparation, or it may be expense and trouble in its

preparation, and has done it for the advantage of having his own

catalogue.... I cannot see any distinction between this and the

publication of a directory. It seems to me to be exactly _in pari

materia_."

[Sidenote: Telegraph Codes.]

A list of telegraphic code words carefully selected so that, in their

transmission by the Morse system of dots and dashes, they would not

be liable to be mistaken or misspelt was admitted to be a copyright

work in _Ager_ v. _P. & O. Steam Navigation Co._[94] The same book,

"The Standard Telegram Code," was again protected in _Ager_ v.

_Collingridge_.[95]

[Sidenote: Shipping Statistics.]

[Sidenote: Mineral Statistics.]

Lists of statistics compiled from various sources of information

are well recognised as original books. "The Clyde Bill of Entry and

Shipping List," containing a compilation of statistics collected from

the official records and documents in the Custom houses, was protected

in Scotland in 1846[96] and again in 1858.[97] The "Mineral Statistics

of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was protected in

England in 1867.[98] It consisted of an annual statement of returns in

the City of London coal market, showing the quantity of coal imported

into London from the various collieries, and was compiled by the clerk

and registrar of the coal market from the day-books in the office.

Page Wood, V. C., said:

"A great deal of time and labour must have been spent in this

compilation, more, indeed, than in the case of a directory or

guide, and there can be no doubt that he is entitled to be

protected in the fruits of his labour."[99]

[Sidenote: Lists taken from public documents.]

[Sidenote: List of Bills of Sale.]

Compilations made from public documents and records are protected in

so far as there is selection or arrangement. A mere verbatim copy of a

public document would not be protected.[100] In _Trade Auxiliary Co._

v. _Middlesborough_,[101] "Stubbs' Weekly Gazette" was protected from

infringement. The gazette contained a list of bills of sale registered

under the Bills of Sale Act and of deeds of arrangement registered

under the Deeds of Arrangement Act. The particulars of each bill of

sale had been taken from the official records, not merely from the

indexes on the official register but from the instruments themselves,

for the inspection of each of which a charge of 1s. or 2s. 6d. is

made. The same and other similar lists were also protected in _Cate_

v. _Devon_.[102]

[Sidenote: Specifications of Patents.]

In _Wyatt_ v._ Barnard_[103] Lord Chancellor Eldon refused protection

to a copy of specifications of patents taken from the patent office.

If this decision meant that a selection, arrangement, or abridgment

of the specifications in the patent office would not be protected, it

cannot be considered sound law.

[Sidenote: List of Foxhounds.]

In _Cox_ v. _Land and Water_[104] Malins, V. C., although he refused

to grant an injunction on the grounds of its probable inefficacy,

expressed a strong opinion that a list of packs of foxhounds, with the

hunting days of each pack and their respective masters and huntsmen,

was the subject of property. The information contained in the list was

obtained by issuing circulars requesting the masters of the hunt to

fill up the required information. The Vice-Chancellor in his judgment

said:

"It is clear that in this case the getting of the names of masters

of hunts, the number of hounds, the huntsmen and whips, and so

forth is information open to all those who seek to obtain it;

but it is information they must get at their own expense, as the

result of their own labour, and they are not to be entitled to the

results of the labours undergone by others."

[Sidenote: Time Tables.]

One of the leading cases in this branch of copyright law is _Leslie_

v. _Young_,[105] a Scotch appeal case. The pursuer's book consisted

of a monthly penny railway time table, published in Perth. It was

compiled from the various railway companies' time tables. Some of

these were taken verbatim and some were abridged by the smaller

stations being omitted, and to the whole was added a list of

convenient circular tours around Perth compiled by the pursuer.

The defender in compiling a rival time table, copied many of these

tables and all of the circular tours from the pursuer's book, either

literally or with colourable differences only. As regards the time

tables the House of Lords sustained the judgment of the Inner House

in refusing an interdict. The mere publication, they said, in any

particular order of the time tables which are to be found in railway

guides and the publications of the different railway companies, could

not be claimed as a subject-matter of copyright. In dealing with the

abridged time tables Lord Herschell, L. C., said:

"Looking at these tables as a whole, and having regard to the

fact that it is admitted that the defender's work is, as regards

these tables, not by any means in all respects a copy of the

pursuer's work, that it was not denied that there was a certain

amount of original work done by them in compiling these tables,

and that these are the differences which have been pointed out,

I do not think that it can be said that as regards these tables

there has been an appropriation by the defender of the pursuer's

work such as to entitle the pursuer to complain and to obtain the

interdict which he claims. The real truth is that although it is

not to be disputed that there may be copyright in a compilation or

abstract involving independent labour, yet when you come to such

a subject-matter as that with which we are dealing, it ought to

be clearly established that, looking at these tables as a whole,

there has been a substantial appropriation by the one party of

the independent labour of the other before any proceeding on the

ground of copyright can be justified."

As regards the circular tours the House of Lords reversed the judgment

of the Court of Session and granted an interdict. The Lord Chancellor

said:

"It appears to me the only part of the work which can be said

to indicate any considerable amount of independent labour and

be entitled to be regarded as an original work.... It seems

to me that this was a compilation containing an abridgment of

information of a very useful character, and such as was likely

to be taken advantage of by those who were travelling in the

neighbourhood of Perth."

[Sidenote: Tables of Calculation.]

Mathematical calculations are undoubtedly subjects of copyright. In

_Baily_ v. _Taylor_[106] Sir John Leach, M. R., evidently assumed

that they were, although in that case he refused an injunction on

the grounds that a very small part had been copied, that what was

copied could have been calculated again in a few hours, and that

there was unreasonable delay in bringing the action. In _M'Neill_ v.

_Williams_[107] protection was sought for "Comprehensive Tables for

the Calculation of Earthwork as connected with Railways," &c. Knight

Bruce, V. C., refused an interim injunction, but he did not suggest

that the calculations were not the subject of copyright.

[Sidenote: Forms and Precedents.]

[Sidenote: Conveyancing Precedents.]

Forms and Precedents and similar works are made and published for the

very purpose that they should be bought and used in business or other

transactions. To this extent copying is of course no infringement,

but they will be protected from any copying other than that which is

impliedly permitted by their publication. In _Webb_ v. _Rose_[108]

precedents of conveyancing were stolen from a barrister's chambers and

printed against his will. The Court had not the least hesitation in

restraining the defendant from printing and publishing them. In the

Scotch case of _Alexander_ v. _Mackenzie_[109] the claim of "Styles

and Precedents of Conveyancing" to protection under the Copyright Acts

was recognised by the Inner House. The forms in question were drawn

up from general directions contained in the "Heritable Securities and

Infeftments Acts," and it was contended that, as all who followed

these directions must arrive at almost identically the same result,

there could be no copyright in a precedent so produced. The Court was

unanimously of opinion that although such work did not require the

exercise of original or creative genius, yet it implied industry and

knowledge, and was undoubtedly the subject of copyright.

[Sidenote: Application Form.]

In _Southern_ v. _Bailes_[110] a form of application by intending

students to a "Lessons by Correspondence Department" was protected by

Chitty, J. The learned judge granted an injunction against copying

the plaintiff's form, but thought it would be dangerous to extend the

injunction in such a matter to colourable imitations, as there was a

great deal in the form any one could have put together for himself.

[Sidenote: Selections and Extracts from Non-copyright Works.]

[Sidenote: Collection of Cookery Recipes.]

[Sidenote: Topographical Dictionary.]

[Sidenote: Child's A B C.]

[Sidenote: "Guide to Science."]

It was very early recognised that the skill and labour of selecting

and arranging extracts from previously published books was sufficient

to entitle the compiler to copyright in the new work thereby

produced.[111] Copyright can thus be obtained without the composition

of a single sentence. There is composition, but the composition is of

new arrangement and not of new matter. In _Rundell_ v. _Murray_[112]

Lord Chancellor Eldon expressed his opinion that a collection of

cookery recipes would have entitled the plaintiff who collected them

to copyright, even if she had merely embodied and arranged them in a

book. If, however, she had only collected them and handed them over

to the publishers, he did not think that would give her copyright.

In _Lewis_ v. _Fullarton_[113] "The Topographical Dictionary of

England," which consisted partly of compilations and selections from

former works, was recognised as being the subject of copyright. In

_Lennie_ v. _Pillans_[114] the Court of Session in Scotland were

of opinion that "The Child's A B C," consisting in a great degree

of extracts from and repetition of previous publications by other

authors, was entitled to protection on account of the original

arrangement, selection, abridgment, or amplification of such borrowed

materials. In _Jarrold_ v. _Houlston_[115] Page Wood, V. C., granted

an injunction against the piracy of Dr. Brewer's "Guide to Science."

The book was intended for the instruction of tiros in science, and was

composed largely from previous works, aided by notes taken from time

to time of popular ideas concerning various scientific phenomena. The

Vice-Chancellor said:

"That an author has a copyright in a work of this description is

beyond all doubt. If any one by pains and labour collects and

reduces into the form of a systematic course of instruction those

questions which he may find ordinary persons asking in reference

to the common phenomena of life, with answers to these questions

and explanations of these phenomena, whether such explanations

and answers are furnished by his own recollection of his former

general reading or out of works consulted by him for the express

purpose, the reduction of questions so collected, with such

answers under certain heads and in a scientific form, is amply

sufficient to constitute an original work of which the copyright

will be protected."

[Sidenote: French Dictionary.]

The same judge, in _Spiers_ v. _Brown_,[116] in considering an alleged

infringement of "Spiers' School Dictionary," said:

"In a large part of his work Dr. Spiers could have no copyright as

to words and expressions, though he might have it as to new words

introduced or new acceptations, or as to the order and arrangement

by which he improved the particular work he had in hand."

[Sidenote: Selections of Poetry.]

In an Indian case Palgrave's "Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics" was

protected. It consisted in a selection and arrangement of poems and

fragments of poems from the non-copyright works of many poets. The

defendant took the selected portions, rearranged them, and made a few

additions. His book was condemned as an infringement.[117]

[Sidenote: Abridgments.]

Lawfully made abridgments are protected on account of the judgment

which the abridger must exercise in order to do his work well.[118]

[Sidenote: Translations.]

Lawfully made translations are also protected as if they were original

works.[119] The protection will only extend to the work of the

translator. A translator by translating a non-copyright work acquires

no exclusive right to translate. Others may do the same from the

original non-copyright source.

[Sidenote: Adaptations.]

An author is entitled to copyright by reason of lawful adaptation of a

book from one form to another; thus, if he dramatizes a novel, or by

material alteration and rearrangement produces a new version of an

old play.[120] The adaptation of music, for instance an opera score

for the pianoforte,[121] or the rearrangement of an old tune,[122] is

the subject of copyright.

[Sidenote: New Editions and Notes.]

New editions either of copyright or non-copyright works are protected

as original books, but only to the extent to which they consist of

original material in the way of notes to, or substantial revision

and alteration of the old text. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke[123]

granted an injunction against the piracy of a new edition of Milton's

"Paradise Lost" containing original notes by Dr. Newton. In _Cary_ v.

_Longman_[124] new material added to an old road-book was protected.

In _Murray_ v. _Bogue_[125] in the case of a subsequent edition of a

guide-book, Kindersley, V. C., said:

"If a man prints a second edition, not being a mere reprint of

the first edition, but containing considerable and material

alterations and additions, _quoad_ those, it is a new work."[126]

In _Cadell_ v. _Anderson_[127] the Court of Session in Scotland held

that the pursuers had the sole right of printing and reprinting

"Blackstone's Commentaries;" and as regards those editions in which

there were corrections and continuations, their term of copyright

began to run afresh with respect to such new material. In _Black_ v.

_Murray & Son_[128] the notes in Lockhart's edition of Scott's "Border

Minstrelsy" were protected, the copyright in the original edition of

the "Border Minstrelsy" having expired. Lord President Inglis, in the

course of a long and elaborate judgment, said:

"Questions of great nicety and difficulty may arise as to how far

a new edition of a work is a proper subject of copyright at all;

but that must always depend upon circumstances. A new edition of

a book may be a mere reprint of an old edition, and plainly that

would not entitle the author to a new term of copyright running

from the date of the new edition. On the other hand, the new

edition of a book may be so enlarged and improved as to constitute

in reality a new work, and that just as clearly will entitle the

author to a copyright running from the date of the new edition....

That there may be copyright in the notes, even when the book is

not under the protection of copyright, is quite a fixed principle

in the law, and most desirably so. There is no doubt that the

compilation of good notes to a standard work is a task worthy of

the highest literary talents and reputation.... Of the 200 notes

the defender's counsel tells us that 15 only consist of original

matter, while the remaining 185 are quotations from other books

and authors. Now this seemed to be considered to be a sort of

disparagement of the value of the notes, in which I cannot at

all agree.... The quotations are, in many places, most apposite,

and highly illustrative of the text, and exceedingly interesting

to the reader, and certainly the selection and application of

such quotations from other books may exercise as high literary

faculties as the composition of original matter."

If a new edition is a mere reprint of what has been published

in "book" form before, it is obvious that no new or independent

corrections, verbal alterations, and the like. Lord Mackenzie, in the

Scotch case of _Hedderwick_ v. _Griffin_,[130] said:

"I doubt very much if there can be right of literary property

in the exclusion from an edition of the works of any author of

articles not truly written or published by that author, or in the

correction of accidental errors, or in the mere order and titles

of articles which seem to be all, or nearly all, that can be

claimed by the pursuers in this case."[131]

The publication of an old work with an index not previously published

would undoubtedly be copyright as to the index.[132]

In _Black_ v. _Murray_[133] Lord Deas was of opinion that the

alteration of a single word in a poem was sufficient to give a new

edition an independent copyright, inasmuch as the alteration was very

important and entirely altered the meaning of the line in which it was

used. The other judges, however, did not altogether concur in Lord

Deas' opinion; and it would seem that his lordship stretched the law

as to new editions too far.

[Sidenote: Reports.]

[Sidenote: Law Reports.]

The question whether a verbatim report of oral proceedings is a "book"

within the meaning of the Copyright Acts was long a moot question.

That there might be copyright in law reports and similar matter,

in so far as they consisted of a summary of the proceedings in the

author's own language, was early recognised. In _Butterworth_ v.

_Robinson_[134] the "Term Reports"; in _Sweet_ v. _Shaw_,[135] Meeson

and Welsby's reports, and others; and in _Sweet_ v. _Maughan_[136]

the reports in the "Jurist" were protected; but it does not appear

in the reports of these cases whether any copyright was claimed in

the verbatim reports of the judgment of the Court. In _Saunders_ v.

_Smith_[137] Lord Cottenham, L. C., refused an injunction against

"Smith's Leading Cases" on equitable grounds, but said he would not

decide the legal question as to whether that publication infringed

the copyright in the "Term Reports" and others. In _Sweet_ v.

_Benning_[138] the defendants published a "Monthly Digest" into

which were copied numerous head notes of cases taken bodily from the

"Jurist." The Court held that these head notes were copyright, and

that the defendant's work was an infringement.

"The head note or the side or marginal note of a report is a

thing upon which much skill and exercise of thought are required

to express in clear and concise language the principle of law

to be deduced from the decision to which it is prefixed, or the

facts and circumstances which bring the case in hand within some

principle or rule of law or of practice."[139]

[Sidenote: Verbatim Reports.]

So far, therefore, as appears from the reports of these cases our

Courts had only recognised copyright in the matter of reports to the

extent to which that matter was the composition of the author, only,

in short, when it was a description in his own language of what had

taken place. The American Courts had held[140] that there was no

their decisions were based to a large extent on the ground of public

policy. The judgments of the Court, they said, were published to the

whole of the people of the United States, and no individual could

acquire a monopoly with respect to them. _Walter_ v. _Lane_[141]

has to a large extent cleared up the doubtful state of our law as

regards reports, but it cannot be said that it has done so entirely.

_Walter_ v. _Lane_[142] decides that a reporter can have copyright

in a verbatim report of the oral utterances of another from whom he

derives no title. In that case certain reporters of the _Times_ were

present at various meetings at which Lord Rosebery made speeches.

These speeches were taken down in shorthand and appeared in the

_Times_ the following morning, reproducing as nearly as possible

verbatim the words which Lord Rosebery had spoken. Lane, a publisher,

subsequently published a book entitled "Appreciations and Addresses:

Lord Rosebery," and purporting to be a collection of some of Lord

Rosebery's speeches. Five of the speeches in this book were taken

from the reports in the _Times_, as was admitted by the defendant,

substantially verbatim. The House of Lords reversing the judgment of

the Court of Appeal and restoring the judgment of North, J., held that

the reports in the _Times_ were copyright, and that the reporters'

assignees, the proprietors of the _Times_, were the owners of the

"My Lords, I should very much regret it if I were compelled to

come to the conclusion that the state of the law permitted one

man to make profit and to appropriate to himself the labour,

skill, and capital of another. And it is not denied that in this

case the defendant seeks to appropriate to himself what has been

produced by the skill, labour, and capital of others. In the view

I take of this case I think the law is strong enough to restrain

what to my mind would be a grievous injustice.... The speeches

and the sheets of letterpress in which they were contained were

books first published in this country; and I confess, upon looking

at the definition and the right conferred, I am wholly unable

to discern why they are not protected by the statute from being

pirated by unauthorised persons. The sole ground, as I understand

the judgment of the Court of Appeal, is that in their judgment the

producer of a written speech, unless he is the original speaker,

cannot be an 'author' within the meaning of the Act. My Lords,

it seems to me that this argument is based upon too narrow and

misleading a use of the word 'author.'... The producer of this

written composition is, to my mind, the person who is the author

of the book within the meaning of the statute.... I do not find

the word 'original' in the statute, or any word which imparts it

as a condition precedent, or makes originality of thought or idea

necessary to the right."[143]

We must be careful not to carry the doctrine of _Walter_ v.

_Lane_[144] further than the actual decision warrants. It should

be noticed, for instance, that the essence of the case is that the

reporter was entitled to copyright, because it was he who first

reduced to "book" form the literary composition contained in Lord

Rosebery's speeches. If, therefore, Lord Rosebery had, before

delivering his speeches, done as some statesmen and many clergymen

do, _i. e._, reduced them to writing, the reporter would probably not

have had copyright, since his report would then have been a mere copy

of the speaker's original manuscript, a very different thing from

being the first manuscript.[145] Again, it must be noticed that Lord

Rosebery claimed no proprietary right in his speeches. It was admitted

by counsel that he had freely abandoned his words to the world so that

any one might make of them what use he pleased. Lord Rosebery might

have secured a right in his own speeches if he had cared to do so. He

might have delivered them to a limited audience[146] under an implied

contract that those who heard his speeches should make no other use of

them except by listening to them and benefiting by the entertainment

and general information conveyed. Possibly he might also have secured

a statutory copyright in them as lectures by giving notice in writing

two days before delivering the same to two justices living within four

miles of the place of delivery.[147] If in either of these ways Lord

Rosebery had secured a proprietary right for himself it is doubtful

whether a reporter unauthorised by him could have acquired copyright

in his report. The report would have been an infringement of Lord

Rosebery's rights, but the reporter might nevertheless be held to

have a copyright against the rest of the world. It should also be

noticed in connexion with this case that it was expressly stated by

the judges in the House of Lords that any number of reporters could

make a report of the same speech, and each would have a separate

he took his book from the _Times'_ report. It is obvious, however,

that if a speech were reported in, say, six newspapers, any one

could reprint it, and by careful correction of the parts in which

the reports varied baffle any one of the newspaper proprietors in an

attempt to prove that the speech was taken from his newspaper. Another

question with regard to verbatim reports, which is not necessarily

covered by _Walter_ v. _Lane_,[149] is in reference to verbatim

reports of judgments in the Courts. Will the American doctrine be

adopted that it is against public policy that there should be any

monopoly in them?[150]

[Sidenote: Mechanical Devices.]

[Sidenote: Cricket Scoring Card.]

The law of copyright does not protect anything in the nature of a

mechanical device, except in so far as apart from any mechanical

application it conveys ideas or information to the person reading it.

In _Page_ v. _Wisden_[151] it was claimed by the plaintiff that he

had literary copyright in a cricket-scoring card, the only novelty

in which was a line along which could be indicated "Runs at the

fall of each wicket." Malins, V. C., held that such a thing was not

a book within the Act, and characterised it as absurd to contend

that a particular mode of ruling a book constituted an object for a

[Sidenote: Shadow Trick.]

[Sidenote: Barometer Face.]

In _Cable_ v. _Mark_,[153] Bacon, V. C., refused to protect under the

Literary Act "The Christograph--the Christian's Puzzle: suitable

for all sects and denominations." This consisted of an envelope on

which the above title was inscribed. Inside the envelope was a card

perforated in such a way that when held up in a strong light it threw

upon the wall a shadow which was supposed to represent the picture

"Ecce Homo." The Vice-Chancellor in his judgment described it as a

mere child's trick and nothing else. The face of a barometer was

held by Chitty, J., in _Davis_ v. _Comitti_[154] not to be a book.

It consisted of a circular card on which were printed various words

such as "set fair," "high winds," &c., and on which the hands of the

barometer moved. The learned judge said:

"Separated from the instrument it was not intended to have and

has no use or meaning whatever. Regarded as a card apart from

the instrument it not only foretells nothing, but tells nothing.

By reading the printed matter on the card alone, no intelligible

proposition is arrived at."

[Sidenote: Sleeve Chart.]

Protection was claimed in _Hollinrake_ v. _Truswell_[155] for a

cardboard pattern sleeve called the "Cosmopolitan Sleeve Chart." It

consisted of a piece of cardboard cut to suitable shape and size and

marked with figures and directions, such as "measure round the thick

part of the arm," and it was intended to be used for the purpose of

measuring and cutting out sleeves. The Court of Appeal reversed the

judgment of Wright, J., and dismissed the action. Lord Herschell

said:

"The object of the Copyright Act was to prevent any one publishing

a copy of the particular form of expression in which an author

conveyed ideas or information to the world. These may be retained

by any one, although the book, map, or chart which embodied them

has passed out of his possession. If he were to commit to memory

the contents of the book or the information disclosed by the map

or chart, he would be as much in possession of the author's ideas

or information as if the book, map, or chart were physically in

his hands. But this is not the case with the words or figures upon

the sleeve chart. They are intended to be used, and can only be

used in connection with that upon which they are inscribed.... I

think it clear, therefore, that what the plaintiff has sought to

protect under the Act for the protection of literary productions

is not a literary production, but an apparatus for the use of

which certain words and figures must necessarily be inscribed upon

it."[156]

[Sidenote: Railway Ticket.]

In a Canadian case a railway ticket containing the names of stations

on the line and dates so arranged that when punched it indicated where

the holder was entitled to travel, was refused protection. It was

said that without the application of the conductor's punch, the ticket

was senseless and meaningless.[157]

[Sidenote: Scroll for Mechanical Instrument and Directions thereon.]

In _Boosey_ v. _Whight_[158] it was held that a sheet of music was not

infringed by a perforated scroll for use in a mechanical instrument;

and further, that the directions in the printed music, _e. g. pp.,

crescendo_, were not the subject of copyright apart from the printed

sheet, and therefore might be taken and used in conjunction with the

perforated scroll. It seems to follow that neither the perforated

scroll nor the directions thereon would constitute a "book" within the

meaning of the Act.

[Sidenote: Sporting Tips.]

_Chilton's Special Guide_ published weekly sporting information. Among

other matter it contained their sporting prophet's "tips" for the big

races in the ensuing week. This was contained in a list, thus:

ONE HORSE SELECTIONS.

_Tuesday_ Keelson.

_Wednesday_ Priestholm.

_Thursday_ Coelus.

_Friday_ Dromonby.

The Progress Printing and Publishing Company published daily at the

various race meetings racing sheets with the day's "tips" from various

sporting papers, thus:

THE SPECIALS, ONE HORSE TRIALS.

_The Jockey_ Rusina

_Racing World_ Keelson

_Gale's_ Keelson

_Chilton_ Keelson.

_Grant's Opinion_ Juda.

_Turf Marvel_ Kenney.

The Court of Appeal held[159] that there could be no copyright in the

individual selections for each day, but suggested that there might be

an infringement to take it bodily. Lindley, L. J., in giving judgment,

said:

"Unless you find the one horse selection and that block which is

headed by the title 'One Horse Selections' in the shape in which

the plaintiff has published it, I doubt whether you can bring

it within literary composition at all. Perhaps the whole of that

might be called literary composition; but there is no literary

composition in the word 'Priestholm.'"[160]

[Sidenote: Illustrations.]

[Sidenote: To Non-copyright Letterpress.]

Engravings, prints, designs, or other reproductions of artistic

matter will be protected under the law of literary copyright either

when published in the form of a volume or when published in connexion

and together with letterpress. By this means compliance with the

stringent requirements of the Acts relating to artistic copyright is

avoided. The first case where an illustration was held to be part of

a book, and therefore protected under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, was _Bogue_

v. _Houlston_.[161]. The plaintiff published some old non-copyright

tales, including "Reynard the Fox," and illustrated them with original

drawings of animals. These woodcuts were pirated by the defendants,

and used as illustrations in their serial publication, "The Story-Book

for Young People, by Aunt Mary." The plaintiff did not claim copyright

in any letterpress.[162] The defendants maintained that the woodcuts

not having been published so as to comply with the provisions of the

Engravings Acts, could not be protected from piracy. It was held,

however, that they were part of a book. Parker, V. C., in giving

judgment, quoted the definition of a book from the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c.

45, and continued:

A Treatise Upon the Law of Copyright in the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the Crown, and in the United States of America Containing a Full Appendix of All Acts of Parliament International Conventions, Orders in Council, Treasury Minute and Acts of Congress Now in Force. · 第 12 / 20 章