« ZurückWeiter »
works on the subject, but they must set limits to their extracts, and not publish the work of another merely in a different form. It has been argued that the defendant has used no greater liberty with the plaintiff's production than is assumed by reviewers; but the same rule holds in works of that kind ; they fairly make extracts, and may comment on those portions, but it would be unfair if they should extract the substance of the work that they choose to review.” See also Sweet and others v. Shaw, 3 Jurist. 217.; Bramwell v. Halcomb, 3 Myl. & C. 737.
Piracy In Reviews. — The case of Roworth v. Wilkes is also an authority with regard to reviews, magazines, literary journals, and periodicals. Sufficient may be given in them to form a correct idea of the work reviewed ; but no one is allowed, under pretence of quoting, to publish either the whole or principal part of another man's composition, and therefore a review must not serve as a substitute for the book reviewed: Roworth v. Wilkes, 1 Camp. 97.; Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422. ; Lewis v. Fullarton, 3 Jurist. 669. ; Saunders v. Smith, 3 Myl. & C. 711. See also Eden on Injunctions, 281. As to the observations of critics in reviews, see Carr v. Hood, i Camp. 355.; Nightingale v. Stockdale, Selwyn's N. P. 9th ed. 1063.; Watts v. Frazer, 7 C. & P. 369.
PIRACY IN HISTORIES, DICTIONARIES, &c. — As to histories, dictionaries, calendars, and all works of calculation, from the generality of their nature, a similarity, more or less close, must necessarily arise in any two works upon one of the subjects to which they relate, yet in either work a copyright will subsist, since each of them is the produce of the ingenuity and
be a piraticely a copy of ich it can be
labour of its respective author, and it is but fair that both should take their chances of success ; but if any circumstance transpire by which it can be shown that one book is merely a copy of another, then that copy will be a piratical publication : Sayre v. Moore, 1 E. 361. n.; King v. Reed, 8 Ves. 223. n.
PIRACY IN ABRIDGMENTS. - In the case of Strahan v. Newberry, Lofft's Reports, 775., the Lord Chancellor Apsley, after consulting Judge Blackstone, said, “ that an abridgment, where the understanding is employed in retrenching unnecessary and uninteresting circumstances, which rather deaden the narration, is not an act of plagiarismi upon the original work, nor against any property of the author in it.” But if the abridged work be but colourably shortened, either by republishing only part of the original, or by omitting some parts and merely transposing the remainder, it is a piracy: Giles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 143.
PIRACY OF A TITLE. — The remarks of Lord Eldon, in the case of Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 215., would seem to show that there may be copyright in a title; as, where a periodical work represents itself to the public to be the same as one already in the course of publication, the former is an infringement on the property of the latter.
PUBLICATION WHEN PUNISHABLE AS A ConTEMPT. — Courts of justice have a control over the publication of their own proceedings. It is claimed and exercised not on the grounds of copyright and property, but on the principle that it is necessary for the due and impartial administration of the laws. Therefore, when any of the higher courts of law forbid the report of a particular case before them, it is a contempt of court to publish it: The King v. Clement, 4 Barn. & Ald. 218. The houses of parliament treat a publication of their proceedings as a breach of privilege, and it is only by sufferance that the reports of debates appear in newspapers. The Lords also deem it an exclusive privilege of their house to publish their own judicial proceedings: Gurney v. Longman, 13 Ves. 493. The publication of matters before the Privy Council, or the Lord Mayor's court, are restrainable by injunction. A criminal information will lie for publishing an ex parte statement of the proceedings on a coroner's inquest : Godson on Patents, last ed., 460. et seq. ; The King v. Fleet, 1 B. & A. 384.
REMEDIES AGAINST LITERARY PIRACY. The remedies against literary piracy are, an injunction from a court of equity, an action at law, and, in some cases, a summary proceeding before magistrates,
INJUNCTION.- An injunction is the mode the most ready and the most usually adopted to prevent any injury accruing to the proprietor of a work from the infringement of his copyright. In the case of Murray v. Benbow, already cited, p. 11., Lord Eldon said, “The jurisdiction of this court (the Court of Chancery) in protecting literary property, is founded on this, that where an action will lie for pirating a work, then the court, attending to the imperfection of that remedy, grants its injunction, because there may be publication after publication, which you may never be able to hunt down by proceeding in the other courts. In Giles v. Wilcox, 2 Atkyn. 144., Lord Hardwicke said, that the question of a supposed piracy by making an abridgment, was a case more proper to be examined in equity than to be sent to law, upon account of the necessity of examining and comparing the two books.
We have already seen (p. 10.) that the proprietor of a book can expect no protection of his property from law or equity, if the work be of an obscene, immoral, or libellous tendency. Nor will the Chancellor grant an injunction if there be even a doubt as to the evil nature of the publication: Murray v. Benbow, MSS.; but in the case of Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 438., Lord Eldon intimated that he might grant an injunction to prevent the publication of a book of bad tendency, where the author repents of his work, and wishes to suppress it. To obtain an injunction against piracy, the proprietor of a work must show, together with possession, a title to the copyright, either clear or colourable: Godson on Patents, last ed., 486., et seq. Where the proprietor of copyright has for some time suffered several to extract from his work, the court will not grant an injunction to protect his publication without, at any rate, a trial at law in the first instance: Saunders v. Smith, 3 Myl. & C. 711. The 24th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45., as we have seen, makes it imperative on a complaining party (except as to the infringement of the right of dramatic representation) to have registered his copyright pursuant to that act, before he can move for an injunction.
Action At Law. - In the case of Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 620., it was decided that the 8 Anne, c. 19., inflicting certain penalties for piracy, which were partly given to a common informer and partly to the crown, did not divest the author of his common
law remedies, because that act having vested the right of property in the author, there must be a remedy to preserve it. Where a statute, said the court, vests property in a party, the other consequence of redress at law follows as of course, unless there be a special provision to the contrary, which is not in this case, because the penalties are wholly inadequate; since they only operate as a punishment on the offender, and afford no redress to the party injured, because the action is not given to him, but to any person who may choose to sue for it.
Now, since the repeal of the 8 Anne, c. 29., the action for piracy will be pursuant to the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45., the 15th section of which enacts, that if any persons, in any part of the British dominions, after the passing of this act, shall 1. print, or cause to be printed, either for sale or
exportation, any book in which there shall be a subsisting copyright, without the consent in
writing of its proprietor; 2. import for sale or hire any such unlawfully
printed book, from parts beyond the sea; 3. or, with a guilty knowledge, sell, publish, or ex
pose to sale or hire, or cause to be sold, published, or exposed to sale or hire, or have in possession for sale or hire, any such book so unlawfully printed or imported, without the consent of the
proprietor; such offenders shall be liable to a special action on the case, at the suit of the proprietor of the copyright, to be brought in any court of record in that part of the British dominions where the offence is committed : provided always, that in Scotland such offender shall