[865] (1833), 6 Sim., 297.
[867] (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22.
[868] 15 Ch. D., at p. 34.
[869] 15 Ch. D., at p. 37.
[870] See as to literary copyright, p. 112.
[871] Murray v. Heath (1831), 1 B. and Ad., 804.
[872] 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57.
[873] 8 Geo. II. c. 13.
[874] Cf. Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567, which is under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, but on a claim for damages an injunction only would seem to be analogous; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.
[875] See infra.
[881] See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186.
[882] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.
[883] Caproni v. Alberti (1892), 40 W. R., 235.
[884] Britain v. Hanks, Wright, J., April 15, 1902.
[885] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.
[886] 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).
[887] 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.
[888] 10 Ir. R. Ch., at p. 516, per Brady, L. Ch. I.
[889] Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. R. Ch., 121, 510.
[890] See supra, p. 42.
[891] 54 Geo. III. c. 56.
[892] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.
[893] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.
[894] As to work done by partner of a firm, see Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902.
[896] 38 Geo. III. c. 71.
[897] Viz., 38 Geo. III. c. 71, and 54 Geo. III. c. 56.
[898] Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902.
[902] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, secs. 1 and 2.
[903] Ibid.
[904] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 6; cf. Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 8o; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311.
[905] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 4; cf. 8 Anne c. 19, sec. 1, and Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 456; Power v. Walker (1814), 3 M. and S., 7; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. Cas., 815.
[906] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 4.
[907] Ibid.
[908] The Sculpture Act gives "double costs," but 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2, substitutes "a full and reasonable indemnity." See p. 144, note 4. This probably means costs in the ordinary sense; but the plaintiff is entitled to them as of right and not as a matter of discretion under the Rules of the Supreme Court.
[909] 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 3.
[910] See infra.
[916] See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186.
[917] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.
[918] Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 2 Ch., 1.
[919] Graves' case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.
[920] See the cases as to new editions of books.
[921] Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D., 99.
[922] Farina v. Silverlock (1858), 4 K. and J., 650. This case is hardly an authority, as it was decided when published paintings and drawings were unprotected; but it is submitted that even under the Act of 1862 a label of this kind would not be protected.
[923] (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510.
[924] (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121.
[925] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1; see Geissendorfer v. Mendelssohn (1896), 13 T. L. R., 91.
[926] See Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[927] Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.
[928] Ibid.
[929] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 4.
[930] Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Pollard v. Photo. Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D., 345.
[931] Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M'N. and G., at p. 42; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.
[932] Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Tuck v. Continental (1887), 3 T. L. R., 826.
[933] Ibid.
[934] London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291; Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), W. N., 145; 48 L. J. Ch., 682.
[935] London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.
[936] Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), W. N., 145; 48 L. J. Ch., 682.
[937] Graves' case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.
[938] Ex parte Walker (1869), 17 W. R., 1018; 10 B. and S., 680.
[939] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 4.
[940] Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; 9 B. and G., 395.
[941] Blackburn, J., 9 B. and S., at p. 398. The headnote in ex parte Walker (1869), 10 B. and S., 680, "That the description 'A Piper and a Pair of Nut-crackers' was sufficient for the purpose of sec. 6," is erroneous, the point being left undecided.
[942] Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Fores v. Johnes (1802), 4 Esp., 97; see Du Bost v. Beresford (1810), 2 Camp., 511.
[943] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.
[944] Ibid.
[945] 7 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.
[946] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.
[947] Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Wooderson v. Tuck (1887), 4. T. L. R., 57; Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Kenrick v. Lawrence [1890], 25 Q. B. D., 99.
[948] Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Kenrick v. Lawrence [1890], 25 Q. B. D., 99.
[949] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1; Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D., 99; Levi v. Champion (1887), 3 T. L. R., 286.
[950] Wooderson v. Tuck (1887), 4 T. L. R., 57.
[951] Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Marshall (1895), 11 T. L. R., 522; Ellis v. Ogden(1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.
[952] Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895] 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Marshall (1895), 11 T. L. R., 522.
[953] Ellis v. Ogden (1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.
[954] Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Ogden (1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.
[955] Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.
[956] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 3.
[957] Troitzsch v. Rees (1887), 3 T. L. R., 773; and see Graves' case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.
[959] London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.
[960] See assignment of literary copyright, p. 78.
[961] See as to partial assignment of literary copyright, p. 80.
[962] (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.
[963] Tuck v. Canton (1882), 51 L. J., Q. B., 363.
[964] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 2.
[965] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.
[966] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, secs. 6, 8, 9, 11.
[967] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6. These penalties are not a civil debt, but in the nature of a fine for a criminal offence; ex parte Graves (1868), L. R., 3 Ch., 642.
[968] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.
[969] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.
[970] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.
[971] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.
[972] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 8.
[973] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.
[974] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.
[975] Ibid.
[976] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 10.
[977] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.
[978] (1898), 14 T. L. R.
[979] [1900], 1 Ch., 73.
[980] Tuck v. Priester (1887), 14 Q. B. D., 629.
[981] Ibid.
[982] Ibid.
[983] Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; Hildesheimer v. Faulkner [1901], 2 Ch., 552.
[984] (1868), 9 B. and S., 395.
[985] 9 B. and S., at p. 402.
[986] Ellis v. Marshall (1895),64 L. J., Q. B., 757; Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Nicholls v. Parker (1901), 17 T. L. R., 482; Green v. Irish Independent [1899], 1 I. R., 386.
[987] [1901], 2 Ch., 552.
[988] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.
[989] Tuck v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Murray v. Heath (1831), 1 B. and Ad., 804; Mayall v. Higbey (1862), 1 H. and C, 148.
[990] Pollard v. Photo. Co. (1888), 4 Ch. D., 345.
[991] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 7.
[992] This offence does not constitute forgery, because a forgery must be a document, and a picture is not a document; Reg v. Closs (1857), 6 W. R., 109.
[993] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 7.
[994] 16 Jac. 1., c. 16, sec. 3.
[995] Lucas v. Williams [1892], 2 Q. B., 113.
[996] 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 2.
[997] Ex parte Beal (1868), 3 Q. B., 387.
[998] Bolton v. Aldin (1895), 65 L. J., Q. B., 120.
[999] But see Hanfstaengl v. Baines [1895], A. C., 20; Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 2 Ch., 1; [1894], 3 Ch., 109.
[1000] Graves' case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715; cf. the case of the photograph of an engraving, Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.), 306; Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.
[1001] [1894], 2 Ch. 1.
[1002] [1895], A. C., 20.
[1003] (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.
[1004] (1842), 9 M. & W., 692.
[1005] (1897), 45 W. R., 476; see also West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737; London Stereo v. Kelly (1888), 5 T. L. R., 169; Bolton v. London Exhibitions (1898), 14 T. L. R., 550.
[1006] Hanfstaengl v. Baines [1895], A. C., 20; ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510.
[1007] Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387.
[1008] Brooks v. Religious Tract Society (1897), 45 W. R., 476; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.
[1009] Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 3 Ch., 109.
[1010] 25 & 26 Vict., sec. 3.
[1011] 25 & 26 Vict., sec. 6.
[1012] London Printing and Pub. All. v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.
[1013] Nicholls v. Parker (1901), 17 T. L. R., 482; and see Guggenheim v. Leng (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.
[1014] 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (4).
[1015] The following colonies have local legislation: India, Ceylon, Canada, the Australian Colonies, New Zealand, Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Hong Kong, Tasmania, Newfoundland.
[1016] Australian Colonies, Tasmania, Cape of Good Hope, Natal, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Ceylon. The period of protection in foreign telegrams varies from 24 to 120 hours in the respective colonies.
[1017] 10 & 11 Vict. c. 95, usually known as the Foreign Reprints Act.
[1018] The following are the colonies now under the provisions of the Foreign Reprints Act, 1847. The dates are of the respective Orders in Council. Bermuda, February 13, 1849; Bahamas, May 21, 1849; Newfoundland, July 30, 1849; St. Christopher, November 6, 1849; Antigua, June 19, 1850; St. Lucia, November 13, 1850; British Guiana, October 23, 1851; Mauritius, April 1, 1853; Grenada, December 29, 1853; Nevis, March 10, 1855; Cape of Good Hope, March 10, 1855; Natal, May 16, 1857; Jamaica, April 23, 1859; Trinidad, March 17, 1875; Barbados, August 15, 1890; St. Vincent, August 26, 1881.
[1019] 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8.
[1020] The following colonies have provided a system of registration: Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, Natal, Cape of Good Hope.
[1021] Printed as a schedule to 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53.
[1022] 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 152.
[1023] 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53.
[1024] 10 & 11 Vict. c. 95.
[1025] 57 & 58 Vict. (Canada), c. 33.
[1026] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17.
[1027] Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.
[1028] 63 & 64 Vict. (Canada), c. 25, known as the Fisher Act.
[1029] (1876), 1 Tupp. App. Rep., 436.
[1030] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 152.
[1031] 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53, sec. 4.
[1032] The type need not be set in Canada; Frowde v. Parish (1896), 27 Ont. Rep., 526.
[1033] 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53, schedule, sec. 15.
[1034] Anglo-Canadian v. Suckling (1889), 17 Ont. Rep., 239.
[1035] 63 & 64 Vict. (Canada), c. 25.
[1036] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17.