[1] "The Law and History of Copyright in Books," by Augustine Birrell, 1899.
[2] 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. 33.
[3] Eyre v. Walker (1735), 4 Burr., 2325; Motte v. Falkner (1735), 4 Burr., 2326; Walthoe v. Walker (1736), 4 Burr., 2326; Tonson v. Walker (1752), 4 Burr., 2326.
[4] (1760), 1 W. Black, 301.
[5] Osborne v. Donaldson (1765), 2 Eden, Ch. Cas., 327.
[6] (1769), 4 Burr., 2303.
[7] (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.
[8] (1769). 4 Burr., 2303.
[9] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15, 2.
[10] Infra, Section I.
[11] Infra, Section II., p. 36. Foreign works first published in certain foreign countries are protected subject to the conditions of the International Copyright Acts, and are dealt with in a separate chapter. Chapter X., p. 193.
[12] This requisite for protection is extremely doubtful. Probably there is no restriction as to nationality of the author. See infra, Section III., p. 42.
[16] Clementi v. Golding (1809), 2 Camp., 25; Storace v. Longman (1788), 2 Camp., 26 n.; Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298.
[18] Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R. 9 Eq. 324.
[19] Walter v. Howe (1881), 17 Ch. D., 708; and see Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T., 157.
[20] Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.
[21] Boosey v. Whight [1900], 1 Ch., 122.
[22] Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374. Both this case and Boosey v. Whight are cases of infringement, but they would seem equally to apply to a question whether a certain scroll or document would be a "book" entitled to copyright under the Acts.
[23] See Stirling, J., in Boosey v. Whight [1899], 1 Ch., at p. 842.
[24] See Stirling, J., in Boosey v. Whight [1899], 1 Ch., at p. 842.
[26] (1801), 1 East., 358; and see White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298; Tonson v. Walker (1752), 3 Swanst., 672.
[27] Black v. Murray (1870), 9 M., 341; Sweet v. Benning (1855), 16 C. B., 459.
[28] Bogue v. Houlston (1852), 5 De Gex and Smale, 267.
[29] Low v. Ward (1868), L. R., 6 Eq., 415.
[30] Leslie v. Young [1894], A. C., 335.
[31] Lindley, L. J., in Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 223.
[32] [1894], 3 Ch., 663.
[33] [1900], A. C., 539.
[34] [1900], A. C., p. 548.
[35] (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[36] 21 Ch. D., at p. 378.
[37] Infra, p. 16.
[38] Infra, p. 16.
[39] Infra, p. 18.
[40] Infra, p. 20.
[41] Infra, p. 20.
[42] Infra, p. 22.
[43] Infra, p. 29.
[44] Infra, p. 225.
[45] Infra, p. 19.
[46] Kenrick v. Danube Collieries (1891), 39 W. R., 473.
[47] Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420.
[48] Chilton v. Progress [1895], 2 Ch., 29; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., at p. 318.
[49] Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420.
[50] Davis v. Comitti (1885), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539.
[51] Fourmat v. Pearson (1897), 14 T. L. R., 82.
[52] Infra, p. 34.
[53] Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[54] Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; see infra, p. 148.
[55] Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.
[59] Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Tamlyn, at p. 299 n.
[60] Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270.
[61] Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539.
[62] Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539. See Brougham, L., in Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 965.
[63] Infra, p. 26.
[64] Infra, p. 25.
[65] Infra, p. 25.
[66] Infra, p. 24.
[67] Infra, p. 23.
[68] Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308; Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; Cary v. Faden (1799), 5 Ves., 24; Cary v. Longman (1801), 1 East., 358; Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168.
[69] Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; 1 Cox. Ch. Cas., 283.
[70] Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308.
[71] Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Page Wood, V. C., at p. 701.
[72] Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270; Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R., 5 Ch., 279; Kelly's Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374; Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R. (Canada), 321.
[73] Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves. 270.
[74] Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269.
[75] Cornish v. Upton (1861), 4 L. T. (N. S.), 862.
[76] Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.
[77] Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.
[78] [1893], 1 Ch., 218.
[79] Bowen, L. J. [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 227.
[80] Lindley, L. J. [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 222; and see Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.
[81] (1863), H. and M., 603.
[82] (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.
[83] L. R., 14 Eq., at p. 414.
[84] (1875), L. R., 19 Eq., 623.
[85] (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.
[86] (1863), 1 H. and M., 603.
[87] (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.
[88] (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[89] (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.
[90] Ibid.
[91] 21 Ch. D., at p. 379; and see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131.
[92] (1898), 78 L. T. (N. S.), 613.
[93] (1863), 1 H. and M., 603.
[94] (1884), 26 Ch. D., 637.
[95] (1886), 2 T. L. R., 291.
[96] Walford v. Johnston, 20 D., 1160.
[97] Maclean v. Moody, 20 D., 1154; and see Kelly's Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374.
[98] Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.
[99] L. R., 3 Eq., at p. 723.
[100] Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77; Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[101] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; and see Hall v. Whittington (1892), 15 Vic. L. R., 525.
[102] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.
[103] (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.
[104] (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324.
[105] [1894], A. C., 335.
[106] (1829) 1 R. and M., 73; see also King v. Reed (1804), 8 Ves., 223.
[107] (1847), 11 Jur., 344.
[108] (1732), cited 2 Bro. P. C. 138; and Ambl., 694.
[109] (1847), 9 D., 748.
[110] Southern v. Bailes (1894), 38 Sol. J., 681; see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131.
[111] See Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., at p. 271.
[112] (1821), Jac., 311; and see Marzials v. Gibbons (1874), L. R., 9 Ch., 518.
[113] (1839), 2 Beav., 6.
[114] (1843), 5 D., 416.
[115] (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.
[116] (1858), 31 L. T. (O. S.), 18; 6 W. R., 352.
[117] Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951; see Moffat and Paige v. Gill [1902], C. A., April 25.
[118] Gyles v. Wilcox (1740), 2 Alk., 142.
[119] Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77; Chatterton v. Cave (1875), 10 C. P., 572; (1878), 3 A. C., 483.
[120] Tree v. Bowkett (1896), 74 L. T., 77; Hatton v. Kean (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268; Chatterton v. Cave (1875), L. R., 10 C. P., 572; (1878), 3 A. C., 483.
[121] Wood v. Boosey (1867), 7 B. and S., 869; Boosey v. Fairlie (1877), 7 Ch. D., 301; (1868), 9 B. and S., 175.
[122] Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4.
[123] Tonson v. Walker (1753), 3 Swanst., 672.
[124] (1801), 1 East., 358; and see Mason v. Murray cited, 1 East, 360 (Gray's Poems).
[125] (1852), 1 Drew, 353.
[126] 1 Drew, at p. 365.
[127] (1787), Mor. Dic., 8310.
[128] (1870), 9 M., 341; and see Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369, at p. 373; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418; Moffat & Paige v. Gill [1902], C. A., April 25.
[129] Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.
[130] (1841), 3 D., 383.
[131] 3 D., at p. 387.
[132] Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80, per L. C., at p. 83.
[133] (1870), 9 M., at p. 352.
[134] (1801), 5 Ves., 709.
[135] (1839), 3 Jur., 217.
[136] (1840), 11 Sim., 51.
[137] (1838), 3 My. and Cr., 711.
[138] (1855), 16 C. B., 459; see Hodges v. Welsh (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R., 266.
[139] 16 C. B., Crowder, J., at p. 491.
[140] See infra, p. 240.
[141] [1900], A. C., 539.
[142] Ibid.
[143] [1900], A. C., at p. 545.
[144] [1900], A. C., 539.
[146] See pp. 37, 223.
[147] 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 65.
[148] [1900], A. C., 539.
[149] Ibid.
[150] See infra, p. 240.
[151] (1869), 20 L. T. (N. S.), 435.
[152] Such an article as this, a mere scheme or plan for arranging material, would not be protected under the law of patents; in re Cooper (1902), 19 Pat. Des. and Trade Mark Cases, 53; in re Johnson (1902), 19 Pat. Des. and Trade Mark Cases, 56.
[153] (1882), 47 L. T. (N. S.), 432.
[154] (1885), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539.
[155] [1894], 3 Ch., 420; see American Law, p. 242, infra, where a similar article was protected. It has also been protected in Victoria, Hanbury v. Dumsday (1884), 10 Vic. L. R., Eq., 272.
[156] Lord Herschell, L. C. [1894], 3 Ch., 420, at p. 424.
[157] Griffin v. Kingston (1889), 17 Ont. Rep., 660; see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131, where some of the dicta in the above case were disapproved.
[158] [1900], 1 Ch., 122.
[159] Chilton v. Progress Printing and Publishing Co. [1895], 2 Ch., 29.
[160] Lindley, L. J. [1895], 2 Ch., at p. 34.
[161] (1852), 5 De Gex and Smale, 267; see Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94; Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234.
[162] See 21 Ch. D., 380.
[163] Parker, V. C., 5 De Gex and Smale, at p. 274.
[164] (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369; and see Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.
[165] At p. 377
[166] (1981), 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452.
[167] (1895), 43 W. R., 266; and see Guggenheim v. Leng (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.
[168] Strong v. Worskett (1896), 12 T. L. R., 532; Fisher v. Folds (1834), 1 Jones, Ir. Ex., 12.
[169] (1896), 12 T. L. R., 532.
[170] Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620.
[171] Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., at p. 427.
[172] Bach v. Longman (1777), 2 Camp., 623; Clementi v. Golding (1809), 2 Camp., 25; White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298; D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288; Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854). 4 H. L. C., 815.
[173] Coleman v. Wathen (1793), 5 T. R., 245; Macklin v. Richardson (1770), Amb., 694; D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288.
[174] Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326; Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 309. See p. 222, infra.
[175] Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.
[176] See Walter v. Lane [1900], H. C., 539.
[177] Kenrick v. Danube Collieries (1891), 39 W. R., 473; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; Exchange Telegraph v. Gregory [1896], 1 Q. B., 147; Exchange Telegraph v. Central News [1897], 2 Ch., 48; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., at p. 2417; Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch. R., 121, 510.