made by the said A. B., and now [sold, assigned, and disposed of] for the first time, to me [or now executed on my behalf] is reserved to the said A. B. Date

(Signed)

C. D.

Agreement to Assign Copyright to Vendee or Assignee of Painting, Drawing, or Photograph (under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, s. 1).

It is hereby agreed between A. B., residing at Kingdom [artist, photographer, &c.], and C. D., of sideration of the sum of

in the United in con

over and above the price of the work hereinafter described, paid by the said C. D. to the said A. B., that the said C. D. is entitled to the copyright in the [painting, drawing, or photograph] made by the said A. B., entitled

and representing

said C. D.

Date.

now first sold and disposed of to the

For forms of transfer of copyright in designs, and authority to register, vide ante, p. 622.

For forms of request to register copyright in designs, vide ante, p. 623.

FORMS OF PLEADINGS (COPYRIGHT).

DECLARATIONS.

For Infringement of Copyright in a Book by printing Copies. In the Queen's Bench [or Common Pleas, or Exchequer of Pleas.] day of

The

, A.D.

(Venue).-A. B. by C. D., his attorney [or in person, as the case may be,] sues E. F., for that the plaintiff was the proprietor of a subsisting copyright in a book entitled and the defendant, after the passing of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixth year of the reign of Queen Victoria, to amend the law of copyright, did, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, so then being such proprietor as aforesaid, and contrary to the said statute, print and cause to be printed for sale [and for exportation] divers copies of the said book; whereby the plaintiff has been prevented from selling divers copies of the said book, and his profits in the said copyright have been diminished; and the plaintiff claims £

(From Bullen and Leake's Precedents, p. 297).

For a similar count see Boosey v. Davidson (4 D. & L. 147) (an action for infringing the copyright in a song, by printing and selling copies).

If the plaintiff wishes also to get an injunction, add (after the words "and the plaintiff claims £

"),

"And the plaintiff also claims a writ of injunction to restrain the defendant from the continuance and repetition of the injuries above complained of, and the committal of other injuries of a like kind relating to the same right."

Count for Infringement of Copyright in a Periodical Work by printing Portions of it in another.

That the plaintiff was the proprietor of a periodical work called "The ," and of the copyright therein, and of and in all the articles therein, of which periodical work an entry had, before this suit, been by the plaintiff duly made in the registry-book of the Stationers Company, as required by the statute in that behalf; yet the defendant wrongfully, and without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, printed for sale, and sold in a periodical work called "The divers portions of the said articles contained in the plaintiff's said periodical, and in which the plaintiff had such copyright as aforesaid, and thereby pirated the said articles, and injured the plaintiff in his said copyright, and diminished his profits of and in the same; and the plaintiff claims £

See Sweet v. Benning (16 C. B. 159).

Count for Infringement of Copyright in a Musical Composition by Printing it for Sale.

That at the time of the committing by the defendant of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, and after the passing of a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the sixth year of the reign of our Lady the now Queen, intituled, "An Act to Amend the Law of Copyright, the plaintiff was, and from thence has been and is, the proprietor of the copyright in a certain book, to wit, a musical composition called under and according to the provisions of the said statute in such case made and provided, yet the defendant did, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, so then being the proprietor of such copyright as aforesaid, print, and cause to be printed, for sale, divers copies of the said book, contrary to the form of the said statute in such case made, whereby the plaintiff was and is greatly damnified; and the plaintiff claims £

See Jeffreys v. Boosey (4 Ho. Lords Cas. 815; 24 L. J. 81, Ex.); Cocks v. Purday (5 C. B. 860); Boosey v. Purday (4 Ex. 145); Clementi v. Walker (2 B. & C. 861); Novello v. Sudlow (12 C. B. 177); Chappell v. Davidson (18 C. B. 197).

For examples of counts for infringement of copyright in a song, having the singer's likeness on the outside, by printing and selling imitations, see Chappell v. Davidson (18 C. B. 194; 25 L. J. 22, C. P.)

For Infringing the Copyright in a Book by selling Copies unlawfully

printed.

That the plaintiff was the proprietor of a subsisting copyright in a book entitled and after the passing of the Act of Parliament, passed in the sixth year of the reign of Queen Victoria, to amend the law of copyright, divers copies of the said book had, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, so then being such proprietor as aforesaid, and contrary to the said statute, been printed by one A. B. for sale; and the defendant, well-knowing the premises, afterwards, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, so being such proprietor as aforesaid, and contrary to the said statute, sold [and published and exposed to sale and hire] divers copies of the said book which had been so printed as aforesaid; whereby the plaintiff was prevented from selling divers copies of the said book, and his profits in the said copyright (From Bullen and Leake's Precedents, p. 297.)

have been diminished.

For Infringement of the Copyright in a Print by means of Photography. That before and at the time of the committing by the defendants of the respective grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was, and from thence hitherto has been and still is, the proprietor of a certain print called which said print the plaintiff had, before the committing of the said grievances, caused to be engraved from a picture by , and which said print had been and was so engraved and taken from the said picture in that part of Great Britain called England, and such print had been and was printed and first published within that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called England, and such print had been and was so first published on the and within twenty-eight years before the committing of the said grievances, or any or either of them, and which said day of the said first publishing

day of

A.D.

of the said print, together with the name of the plaintiff (who then was, and from thence hitherto has been and still is the proprietor of the said print), was before and at the time the said print was so first published as aforesaid, and from thence continually hitherto, truly engraved upon each plate upon which the said engraving was made, and from which the said prints are printed, and which said day of the said first publishing of the said print, together with the name of the plaintiffs, was truly printed upon every print taken or printed from such plates, or any or either of them, and at the several times of the committing by the defendants of the respective grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was entitled under the Acts of Parliament in that behalf to the sole right and liberty of printing and reprinting the said print, yet the defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving, and wrongfully and fraudulently intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the profits and advantages which he might and otherwise would have derived from the said print, and also to deprive him of his copyright therein, heretofore and after the passing of an Act of Parliament passed in the seventeenth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Third, intituled, “An Act for more effectually securing the Property of Prints to Inventors and Engravers, by enabling them to sue for and recover Penalties in certain cases," and within six calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, and within twenty-eight years from the said first publishing of the said print, wrongfully, and without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, signed by him, or any other consent of the plaintiff, did on divers days and times before the commencement of this suit in England aforesaid, copy in the whole the said print contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. [If the defendants have also copied the print in part add] And the defendants, further contriving and intending as aforesaid, and within six calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, and within twenty-eight years from the said first publishing of the said print, wrongfully and fraudulently, and without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, signed by him, or any other consent of or from the plaintiff, and in England aforesaid, did on divers days and times unlawfully copy in part the said print contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. [If the defendants have sold copies add] And the defendants further contriving and intending as aforesaid, and within six calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, and within twenty-eight years after the said first publishing of the said print, wrongfully and fraudulently, and without the consent in writing of the plaintiff signed by him, or any other consent of or from the plaintiff, and in England aforesaid, did on divers days and times unlawfully publish and sell, or otherwise dispose of, and procure to be published, sold, and otherwise disposed of, divers, to wit, copies of the said print, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided. See Graves v. Ashford (16 L. T. N. S. 98; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 410; 36 L. J. 139, C. P.).

For Infringement of Copyright in a Print by selling Copies from a spurious Plate.

Copy preceding precedent down to the end of the word "plaintiff," on line 26 of p. 725; then proceed: Did unlawfully publish and sell, and cause and procure to be published and sold divers base copies of the said print whereof the plaintiff so was the proprietor as aforesaid, which copies were engraved and made without the consent of t!.e

plaintiff, and against his will, and did expose to sale divers other copies of the same print without the consent in writing and against the will of the plaintiff, and did engrave, etch, and work, and copy, and sell, and caused to be engraved, etched, and worked, and copied, and sold, in part by varying from the main design, divers other copies of the same prints, without the consent in writing and against the will of the plaintiff, by means whereof the plaintiff has been and is greatly injured in his property in the said print, and has lost and been deprived of divers great gains and profits which he would otherwise have derived and acquired by the printing and selling of the said print. See Gambart v. Lee (29 L. J. 98, Ex.; 5 H. & N. 5).

For Penalties for Infringement of Right of Representing or Performing a Dramatic Piece.

That before and at the time of the committing of the grievances by the defendant hereinafter mentioned, and after the passing of a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, entitled an "Act to Amend the Laws relating to Dramatic Literary Property," the plaintiff was the proprietor of a certain dramatic piece [or of certain dramatic pieces] called , and had as such proprietor the sole liberty of representing or causing to be represented the said dramatic piece [or pieces] at any place or places of dramatic entertainment whatsoever in any part of the British dominions, and from thence hitherto has been and is the proprietor thereof and possessed of the sole right and liberty as aforesaid; yet, while the plaintiff was the proprietor thereof as aforesaid, and had the sole liberty of representing and causing to be represented the said dramatic piece [or pieces] as aforesaid, and after the passing of the said Act of Parliament, and within twelve calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, the defendant, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff first had and obtained, did represent and perform, and cause to be represented and performed, the said dramatic piece [or pieces, or divers parts of the said dramatic piece or pieces] at a certain place [or at divers places] of dramatic entertainment in Great Britain, to wit, at the Theatre, in the county of times, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and contrary to the right of the plaintiff as such proprietor as aforesaid, by reason whereof, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided, the defendant has become and is liable to pay to the plaintiff, so being such proprietor as aforesaid, and having such sole liberty as aforesaid, an amount not less than forty shillings in respect of each and every such representation of the said dramatic piece [or of each of the said dramatic pieces], or the full amount of the benefit or advantage arising from each and every of such representations, or the injury or loss sustained by the plaintiff therefrom, whichever shall be the greater damages; and the plaintiff says that the sum of forty shillings is the greatest damages recoverable by him according to the form of the said statute, in respect of each representation of the said piece [or of each and every of the said pieces] by the defendant as above-mentioned, whereof the defendant had notice; whereby, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided, an action has accrued to the plaintiff to demand and have from the defendant several sums of forty shillings, yet the defendant has not paid the same or any part thereof.