having previously done all necessary acts for securing to himself the copyright of the print. The defendant having purchased one of the prints, had it copied on canvas in colours on a very large scale, with dioramic effect; and he publicly exhibited such dioramic copy at the Queen's Bazaar in Oxford Street for money, describing it, in his handbills and advertisements as "Mr. Martin's grand picture of Belshazzar's Feast,' painted with dioramic effect." The plaintiff applied for an injunction, but the Vice-Chancellor refused to grant one, on the ground that exhibiting for profit was in no way analogous to selling a copy of the plaintiff's print, but was dealing with it in a very different manner. The Engraving Acts were not intended to apply to a case where there was no intention to print, sell, or publish, but to exhibit in a certain manner. "If, however," added the Vice-Chancellor, "Martin had exhibited his picture as a diorama, then he might have been entitled to an injunction" (a)

The statutes do not apply to the taking a print unlawfully from a lawful plate. In Murray v. Heath (b), where the defendant, an engraver, took a number of impressions from a plate engraved by himself, but which he had undertaken to engrave for the use of the plaintiff, it was decided that no action was maintainable against him under the 17 Geo. 3, c. 57 (c). Of course at common law an action for damages might have been maintained by reason of the breach of contract to deliver to the plaintiff all the impressions.

So, upon a similar principle, it was held in Mayall v. Higbey (d) that a person who lends photographs to another for a particular purpose, may prevent him from taking and selling copies, except in pursuance of the purpose for which they were lent, and this, although the photographs have been published and irrespective of the question of copyright. The above was a case in which the plaintiff had lent photographs of eminent persons to Tallis, the

(a) Martin v. Wright, 6 Sim. 297; Page v. Townsend, 5 Sim 395. (b) 1 Barn. & Adol. 804.

(c) App. x.

(d) 1 H. & C. 148.

N

CAP. XII.

CAP. XII. proprietor of the 'Illustrated News of the World,' for the purpose of engraving them for that newspaper. Tallis became bankrupt, and his assignees sold the photographs to the defendant; and it was held that the plaintiff was not only entitled to the photographs but to the unsold copies, and to an injunction to restrain the further sale. The Court said that there was no question of copyright, and compared it to the case of a valuable statue, which a friend to whom it is lent has no right to get copied.

In what class

no copyright.

No copyright can exist in any obscene, immoral, or of engravings libellous engraving (a); and were one to destroy such a print or engraving, he would merely be liable at law to pay the value of the paper and print (b).

International copyright.

By an Act of Parliament to amend the law relating to international copyright (7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, ss. 2-4) (c), Her Majesty is empowered by an order in council to grant the privilege of copyright for such period as shall be defined in such order (not exceeding the term allowed in this country) to the authors, inventors, and makers of books, prints, articles of sculpture, and other works of art, or any particular class of them to be defined in such order, which shall, after a future time to be specified in such order, be first published in any foreign country, to be named in such order. But no such order in council shall have any effect unless it shall be therein stated as the ground for issuing the same that due protection has been secured by the foreign power named in such order in council for the benefit of parties interested in works first published in the dominions of Her Majesty similar to those comprised in such order. And every such order in council is to be published in the 'London Gazette' as soon as may

(a) See 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 4; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 38, s. 2; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 83; Fores v. Johnes, 4 Esp. 97.

(b) Du Bost v. Beresford, 2 Camp. 511. In The Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth, 7 Jur. (N.S.) 641, Ch.; on appeal, 4 L. T. (N.S.) 494, the Lord Chancellor stated that the cases of Burnett v. Chetwood (2 Mer. 441, note) and Du Bost v. Beresford, supra, were wrongly decided. Compare the fact of the liability of the destroyer for the amount of the paper, with the maxim in Moor, 813: "Inveniens libellum famosum et non corrumpens punitur," and, if possible, reconcile the two.

(c) App. lviii.

be after the making thereof, and from the time of such pub- CAP. XII. lication shall have the same effect as if every part thereof were included in the Act. And no copyright is allowed in any work of art first published out of Her Majesty's dominions otherwise than under this Act.

In concluding, we will offer a few remarks on the remedy Summary proafforded by a late Act of Parliament for the recovery the recovery ceedings for of the penalties for infringement under the Engraving of penalties. Acts. The mode of recovery was much simplified by the 8th section of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, commonly known as the Copyright (Works of Art) Act (a). By this clause all pecuniary penalties which shall be incurred, and all such unlawful copies, imitations, and all other effects and things as shall have been forfeited by offenders pursuant to any Act for the protection of copyright engravings, may be recovered by the person empowered to recover the same, and thereinafter called the complainant or the complainer, as follows:

and Ireland.

In England and Ireland, either by action against the In England party offending, or by summary proceedings before any two justices having jurisdiction where the party offending resides (b);

In Scotland, by action before the Court of Session in In Scotland. ordinary form, or by summary action before the sheriff of the county where the offence may be committed or the offender resides, who, upon proof of the offence or offences, either by confession of the party offending or by the oath or affirmation of one or more credible witnesses, shall convict the offender, and find him liable to the penalty or penalties aforesaid, as also in expenses; and it shall be lawful for the sheriff, in pronouncing such judgment for the penalty or penalties and costs, to insert in such judg

(a) App. xcii.

(b) A magistrate sitting at a police court within the metropolitan police district, and every stipendiary magistrate appointed or to be appointed for any other city, town, liberty, borough, or place, or the lord mayor, or an alderman of London, sitting at the Mansion House, or Guildhall Justice Rooms, has power, when sitting alone, to exercise the jurisdiction given by this Act to two justices. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, s. 14; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, ss. 29, 33, 34.

CAP. XII.

Evidence on behalf of plaintiff.

ment a warrant, in the event of such penalty or penalties and costs not being paid, to levy and recover the amount of the same by pounding; provided always that it shall be lawful to the sheriff, in the event of his diminishing the action and assoilzieing the defender, to find the complainer liable in expenses; and any judgment so to be pronounced by the sheriff in such summary application shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to review by advocation, suspension, reduction, or otherwise.

Further, it is declared lawful for the superior courts of record in which any action may be pending, or if the courts be not then sitting, then for a judge of one of such courts, on the application of either the plaintiff or defendant, to make an order for an injunction, inspection, or account, as to such court or judge may seem fit.

The evidence to be adduced at the trial on behalf of the plaintiff is simply that he is the proprietor of the print or engraving pirated; and it is sufficient that he produce one of the prints taken from the original plate. The production of the plate itself is not requisite.

CHAPTER XIII.

COPYRIGHT IN SCULPTURE AND BUSTS.

THE art of sculpture has never been particularly favoured The art of sculpture. by the English nation. It is an art which ought certainly to be patronised more extensively, for it refines and improves the public mind and taste.

The erection of national monuments to the memory of individuals who by their works or their virtues have conferred lasting benefit or honour on mankind in general or their own country in particular, or in order to commemorate important public events, is a means by which the art produces the most influential moral effects.

These mementoes or memorials, though in the present age the unphilosophical and sciolistic spirit of some have led them to regard with contempt this method of honouring the illustrious great, excite a laudable admiration for the service or benefit to which they testify, and are living realities to perpetuate at once the respect entertained by the nation, both for the individual himself and the performance that has entitled him to their gratitude. When efficiently executed, they not only perpetuate the memory of the individual himself and record his good deeds, but appeal continuously to the national mind, and encourage and stimulate all posterity to follow in his footsteps. The person represented seems to be ever present. The deeds commemorated appear still in vivid force, and although we have not the actual presence of the departed, we retain his remembrance and preserve much of his influence.