seems, however, that since the Year Books, no judicial proceedings have been published under authoritative care and inspection, either by the house of lords, or by any court in Westminster Hall, except state trials.1

The idea of property in the king, as the chief foundation of the prerogative copies, has been long abandoned, with reference to most of them, and such as still exist are upheld by reasons of convenience and of the relation of the king, as head of the state and the church, to his subjects. The practice of treating the publication of judicial proceedings as a contempt, except in cases where a special order has been made, has fallen into desuetude; and on the other hand, the courts take no official measures for the publication of their judgments. There is therefore no other right of property acquired by the reporters in the judgments of the courts, than such as is founded on the diligence and skill that may be used in taking notes in court of what may fall from the judges. If the judgments are in some cases furnished to them in manuscript by the court, there seems to be no ground upon which it can be said that the court thereby confers anything like a right of property upon the reporters. The statements of the cases and the arguments of counsel may be the subject of property in the reporter, by reason of his personal skill and diligence in reporting them, which

1 Ibid.

make them to a certain extent his own compositions. It was apparently upon this ground that the copyrights of the Term Reports and the Reports of Vesey Jr. have both, at different times, been protected by injunction.1

In America, the subject of copyright in the reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, has undergone very elaborate discussion in that tribunal. By an act of congress, the Supreme Court of the United States is attended by an official reporter, who receives a stated salary from the government, and is required to furnish a certain number of copies of his reports to the department of state for the use of the government. But the court, in the case here alluded to, were unanimously of opinion that the reporter can have no copyright in the written opinions delivered by the court, and that the judges cannot confer upon any reporter any such right. The ground of this decision was, that the opinions of the court, being published under the authority of congress, were not the proper subject of private copyright. But it was not doubted by the

1 Butterworth v. Robinson, 5 Ves. 709. Vesey v. Sweet, cited 5 Ves. 709, note (Sumner's Edition.) In Saunders v. Smith, 3 Mylne & Cr. 711, it appears that copyrights of the Term Reports and the Reports of East, Taunton, Barnewell & Cresswell, and Bingham, were claimed by the plaintiffs as their property, but the Lord Chancellor assuming but not deciding the legal right, decided the application for an

injunction upon evidence of a presumed consent by the plaintiffs. The case is reported as presenting the quare, whether it is not piracy to print, at full length, cases contained in the Law Reports, although with the addition of notes, however voluminous. The book complained of was Smith's Leading Cases.

Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters R. 591, 668.

court that the reporter had a copyright in his own marginal notes, and in the arguments of counsel, as prepared and arranged in his work.1

1 Per Story J. in Gray v. Russell, 1 Story's R. 4.

12

CHAPTER III.

OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUTES.

THE author, or his assignee, of any publication entitled to the protection of copyright, may secure the benefits of the law; but an important question arises, whether the citizenship of the author affects in any way the exercise of this right.

In England, the statute of Anne, while it secured a copyright to authors generally, contained a proviso that nothing therein should be construed to extend to prohibit the importation, or selling of any books in Greek, Latin or any other foreign language, printed beyond the seas. Under this act, it was possible that a Latin book might be written and first published in England, and afterwards republished abroad, and then imported into England. To remedy this defect, the 12 George II. c. 36, prevented the importation into England of books printed in England

and reprinted in any other country. These are the only statutes which bear upon the subject of foreign books, prior to the 1 and 2 Vict. c. 59; and they

left open the questions, whether a foreigner could take a copyright in England of a work which he first publishes there; whether a British subject could take a copyright of a work which he had bought in manuscript from a foreign author; and whether a foreign author could take a copyright in England after he had published his work abroad.

Upon the first of these questions, whether an alien friend, by first publishing his work in England, can take a copyright there, a strong opinion in the affirmative has been expressed and acted upon, in equity. Sir L. Shadwell, V. C., in a recent case, said, that if an alien friend wrote a book, whether abroad or in England, and gave the British public the advantage of his industry and knowledge by first publishing the work there, he was, in his opinion, entitled to the protection of the statutes. But as the question was a legal one, he directed an action, which was brought, and the defendant consented to a verdict.'

The International Copyright Act, 1 and 2 Vict. c. 59, is silent upon this question, although it declares that foreign authors, who first publish out of her Majesty's dominions, can have no copyright ex

'Bentley v. Foster, 10 Sim. 329. In a more recent case, Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., intimated the opinion, that an alien friend, first publishing in England, is entitled to the protection of the statutes. Chappel v. Purday, 4 Y. & Coll. 485, 488. It seems also that the case of Bach v. Longman, Cowp. 623, was an action brought by a foreigner; and

semble, that a foreigner who resides and publishes in England, is entitled to copyright like a British subject. D'Almaine v. Boosey, 1 Y. & Col. 288, 298. The statutes are consistent with a foreigner bringing a work with him, and publishing or selling it in England. Per Ld. Lyndhurst, C. B. in Chappel v. Purday, 4 Y. & Col. 485, 490.