of Anne. Injunction where publication would be a breach of trust. A court of equity will, however, interfere to pre- Construction of the Statute vent the publication of letters which would be a breach of trust or confidence, the plaintiff having a right of preventing the publication, independent of any original copyright: an injunction was accordingly granted to restrain the publication of letters from an old lady under a weak attachment to a young man, there having been an agreement not to publish the letters, but to deliver them up for valuable consideration, and a sum of money having been actually paid to the defendant (a). In a case before Lord Manners upon a bill filed by an executor, it appeared that the defendant, who was a relation of the testatrix, and as such had been permitted to reside in her house in Dublin, where she left a great number of letters, had refused to deliver them up, and threatened to publish them by subscription: an injunction was accordingly granted to restrain the publication (b). between would be re Sir T. Plumer has alluded to another class of cases Whether under this head, viz. of letters consisting of the cor- of correpublication respondence between friends and relations upon spondence their private concerns. "It is not necessary, "his friends and Honour observed, "here to determine how far such relations letters falling into the hands of executors, assignees strained. of bankrupts, &c. could be made public in a way that must frequently be very injurious to the feelings of individuals. I do not mean to say that would afford a ground for a court of equity to interpose to prevent a breach of that sort of confidence, independent of contract and property (c).” (a) v. Eaton, 13 Ap. 1813, cit. 2 V. & B. 27. Construction It has been determined that a copyright may exist of the Statute in a Translation, whether it be produced by personal application and expense, or gift (a). of Anne. Translation. No copyright in The court has refused to extend an injunction to restrain the publication of the specifications of paspecification tents, which were part of an original work that had of patent. been pirated (b). Additions. Abridgment. An author may also have a copyright in part of a work, without having an exclusive right to the whole (c). Thus Gray's poems, which had been for many years published, were collected and published, with additional pieces, by Mason; Lord Bathurst granted an injunction as to the publication of the additions (d). There is also a prior instance, in which Lord Hardwicke granted an injunction to restrain the defendants from printing Milton's Paradise Lost with Dr. Newton's notes (e). Where a book is colourably shortened only, it is undoubtedly within the meaning of the act of parliament, as a mere evasion of the statute, and cannot be called an Abridgment (f). Injunctions have accordingly been frequently granted, against publications which were merely colourable abridgments (g). But this, as observed by Lord Hardwicke, must not be carried too far, so as to restrain (a) Wyatt v. Barnard, 3 V. & B. 77. Burnett v. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. 441. n. (b) Wyatt v. Barnard, sup. (c) Cary v. Longman, 1 East. 358. (d) Mason v. Murray, cit. ib. (e) Tonson v. Walker, cit. Burr. 2326. (f) Gyles v. Wilcox, 3 Atk. 143. (g) Bell v. Walker, 1 Bro. C. C. 451. Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves. 709. of Anne. persons from making a real and fair abridgment, for Construction of the Statute abridgments may, with great propriety, be called a new book; because not only the paper and print, but the invention, learning, and judgment of the author is shown in them, and in many cases are extremely useful (a). Accordingly Sir T. Clarke dismissed a bill for an injunction, to restrain the publication in a magazine, of a fair abridgment of Rasselas (b). The same doctrine is also applied to extracts and Quotations. quotations. There is no doubt, as observed by Lord Eldon, that a man cannot, under pretence of quotation, publish either the whole or part of another's work, though he may use, what is in all cases very difficult to define, fair quotation (c). That part of the work," observed Lord Ellenborough," of one author is found in another, is not of itself piracy, or sufficient to support an action; a man may fairly adopt part of the work of another: he may so make use of another's labours for the promotion of science, and the benefit of the public; but having done so, the question will be, was the matter so taken used fairly with that view, and without what I may term the animus furandi (d).” But if an encyclopædia or review copies so much of a book as to serve as a substitute for it, this is an (a) Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 143. (b) Dodsley v. Kinnersley, Amb. 408. (c) 17 Ves. 424. Whittingham v. Wooler, Dec. 8, 1817. (d) Cary v. Kearsley, 5 Esp. N. P. C. 170. There is an inconsistency between this passage and an observation of his lordship in Roworth v. Wilks, 1 Campb. 97. that the intention to pirate is not necessary, it is enough that the work complained of is in substance a copy. may Construction actionable violation of literary property, although of the Statute there have been no intention to pirate it (a). of Anne. Accordingly, in a late case, Lord Eldon directed an action to try whether a work on architecture was original, with a fair use of another work by quotation and compilation (b). Copyright in particular work, though not in a general subject. Sir W. D. Evans, in his valuable annotations upon the statute relating to this branch of law, notices, that writers on any detached subject, as the Bankrupt Laws, the Poor Laws, the Game Laws, &c. have never been molested in printing at large the statutes applicable to those respective subjects (c). There is a certain species of publication, such as maps, charts (d), road-books, calendars, books of chronology, tables of interest, &c. in which it has been frequently contended that no copyright could exist; but though copyright cannot subsist in the general subject, it is clear that it may in the particular work (e). And although if the same skill, intellect, and diligence, are applied in the second instance, the public will receive nearly the same information from both works; yet there is no doubt that the latter publisher cannot on that account spare himself the labour and expense of actual (a) Roworth v. Wilks, 1 Campb. 94. (b) Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422. (c) 2 Ev. Collect. pt. 3. cl. 1. survey, (d) The doubts upon these two sorts of publication were re moved by the 7 Geo. 3. c. 38. vide ante, p. 266. (e) Sayre v. Moore, 1 East. 361. n. Trusler v. Murray, ib. Cary v. Faden, 5 Ves. King v. Read, ib. 223. n. Longman v. Winchester, 16 Ves. 269. Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422. and that a court of equity will interfere to prevent Construction a mere republication of a work, which the labour of the Statute of Anne. and skill of another person has supplied to the world (a). The piracy in these cases, has been generally detected, by the circumstance of the latter work, having copied the errors of the former. If a publication were to appear on the face of it, No copyto be a libel so gross as to affect the public morals, a right in libel. jury would be directed to give no damages for a violation of the copyright (b). And it has been decided that an action cannot be maintained to recover the value of obscene or libellous prints (c). Upon the same principle a court of equity, even upon the submission in an answer, would not decree either an injunction or an account of the profits of a work of this nature (d). Lord Eldon has thrown out an opinion, that under certain circumstances an injunction might be maintained, where a person having composed a work of which he afterwards repents, wishes to withhold it from the public (e). duction of Most of the cases of injunction to restrain pub- Publications lications have arisen under circumstances, where, the prounder colour of a new work, the plaintiff is al; another, or leged to have republished and multiplied the copies as a conof an old work belonging to the plaintiff. It hap- another's (a) 16 Ves. 271. (b) 2 Campb. 27. n. (c) Fores v. Jones, 4 Esp. N. P. C. 97. Du Bost v. Beresford, 2 Camp. 511. (d) Walcot v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1. Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 435. (e) 2 Meriv. 438. tinuation of work. |