2 First publication in United Kingdom.-The Copyright Act of 1842 expressly applies to every book which shall be published, and as no further precision is given to the word "published," the courts had to decide that that word means "published for the first time in the United Kingdom."1 And if the author is a British subject, it is immaterial in what foreign country he resides, provided he comply with the statute by first publishing in the United Kingdom. The legislature seems to have thought it a sound rule, that he who first published a MS. abroad would not be entitled to any copyright of the same in this country. And if an English author first publish his book abroad he must pursue the same steps as are laid down for foreign authors under the International Copyright Acts. If there is no treaty convention with the foreign country, then he can in such case acquire no copyright in this country if he first publish in such foreign country. But if there is such treaty, then he receives such protection as the International Copyright Acts supply. But as regards works first published before 1843 an alien residing abroad was held not entitled to copyright, though he first published in this country; for it was said that he owed no allegiance to this country, and the Act of Anne, c. 9, was not passed to confer the privileges of an English subject on aliens.* On the the other hand, any foreign author who resides in any part of the British dominions at the time of his first publication of a book in the United Kingdom acquires the same rights as a British author. And such was the case where a native of the United States went and resided in Canada for a few days while the book was first published in the United Kingdom. But if the publication here and abroad is simultaneous, the same protection is given to the publication here as if it had been first exclusively published here. 7 International Copyright Acts.-While copyright has, as already explained, with difficulty been recognised as property in this country, and the common law right has been confiscated and superseded by a temporary right for a limited time, 4 27 Vic. c. 12, § 19. 1 5 & 6 Vic. 45, § 3. Delafield, 1 H. & M. 597. 5 Routledge Low, L. R., 3 H. L. 100. Purday, 5 C. B. 860. the same right as between nation and nation has been still more arbitrarily ignored. When a ship belonging to a British subject drifts on a foreign shore, the citizens of that foreign country are nowhere now encouraged by their own legislature and courts to view it as a wreck or prizeto scramble for the masts and tackle, and to seize the cargo and divide the spoil as if it were a windfall. And yet when a book of a British subject is sent or taken to a foreign country, there is a singular unanimity among nations in this barbaric notion they act upon. It is true there was a stage of progress in all countries, when nothing was believed to exist, except what could be weighed and measured and handled and eaten. Each civilised country, forgetting its progress in other things, still professes that it cannot discover who is the foreign author entitled to the valuable right of reprinting a book that reaches them; and therefore that there must be no author at all and no proprietor; and therefore that the first finder may at pleasure seize and appropriate it. Such, indeed, was the early faith of barbarians in so far as regarded the property of foreigners which came within their own country. It was only by degrees that legislatures began to generalise, and surrender the predatory instinct. They have long learnt, that such practices were incompatible with civilisation and the very elementary principles of all property, except copyright. It is true that in very modern times a kind of international code has sprung up, as if civilised people were inclined. voluntarily to remedy some glaring defects in such conduct. By virtue of special treaties some countries now agree to recognise and give effect to the copyright of each other's citizens, and put the rights of foreigners as in most respects on the same footing as those of natives, upon each author complying with certain conditions. Such statutes have existed for forty years in Great Britain, and there are treaties in existence between some of the leading countries of the world which give effect to these new views; and they also contain provisions protecting authors against translations without their consent, and protecting also sculpture and works of art, as well as dramas, music, engravings, paintings, and photographs.1 1 7 & 8 Vic. c. 12; 15 & 16 Vic. c. 12; 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68. International copyright conventions were made between Great Britain on T Fixing price of books and compelling republication. -One singular provision of the Act of Anne empowered the Archbishop of Canterbury, the judges, and some others to entertain complaints as to the price of books and to fix a reasonable sum. This notion was derived from the middle ages, and was embodied in the statutes of Henry VIII., when legislatures thought it within their province to dictate to mankind the wages they should receive, the kind of work they were to do, even the food they should eat and the dress they should wear. And yet in 1842 a somewhat similar enactment is repeated, though restricted to one case only. That case is, that when an author is dead and his executor or assignee has refused to republish a book, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may grant a licence to republish it under conditions. This anomalous interference with private property can only be justified on the assumption, that copyright differs from other kinds of rights. Yet as all courts now treat it as a first principle, that no man's property shall be taken compulsorily without compensation, this last consideration will probably now always be one of the conditions of such an interference of absolute power. Another kindred enactment, borrowed from the Statute of Anne, and an Act of 1665, and equally anomalous, is, that "the publisher of every new work is bound under a penalty to deliver a copy gratuitously to some public libraries," thereby inflicting actual punishment on authors, instead of encouraging them.2 What is a book under Copyright Acts?-The word "book" is defined in the Act of 1842 as including a sheet of music, or of letterpress, or map or plan separately published. In the course of construing the Act, it has been established, that a book includes pictorial illustrations if the one hand with Prussia and Saxony on the other hand in 1846; with Brunswick, Thuringian Union, Hanover, Oldenberg, in 1847; with France in 1851; with Anhalt and Hamburgh in 1853; with Belgium in 1854; with Prussia (additional) in 1855; with Spain in 1857; with Sardinia in 1860.-Drone on Copyright, 86. No such treaty has yet been made with the United States. 1 5 & 6 Vic. c. 45, § 5. 25 & 6 Vic. c. 45, §§ 6, 10. A copy is to be delivered to some of these public libraries, if requested, within twelve months from the date of publication.-The penalty is 51. for non-delivery.-5 & 6 Vic. c. 45, § 10.-See ante, p. 46, notc these are part of the book. No nice inquiry into the intensity of thought or originality displayed by the author in his book will be made, nor will its literary value be weighed in golden scales; and hence mere compilations and classifications of common subjects may be the subject of copyright, if they possess some feature giving it value, and capable of identification as to style and order of thoughts. Thus copyright will be recognised in schoolbooks. Even an annotated catalogue of books may well. be the subject of copyright, if there is obvious labour in producing it; and another cannot copy it and sell it.3 In the case of a cookery book, Lord Eldon refused to treat it as a book. The authoress gave the MS. to the publisher as a free gift, and after he had published it and recouped his expenses, she claimed to restrain him from selling more copies, as she wished to publish on her own account. The court held that the injunction could not be allowed; but she must resort to an action at law. If an old air is adapted to new words or new accompaniment, it comes within the definition of book, being a sheet of music; or even the adaptation of a part of an opera to the pianoforte. A new edition, if the alterations are sufficiently distinct and of some value, is also a book. There is one quality belonging to copyright, which distinguishes it from patent right, namely, that it is severable and may attach to one part of a work only, as, for example, where notes are added to a text which is per se without copyright, or where one half of a work was incapable of copyright, but the latter half was capable of it. The title of a book, taken by itself, is however not included in a book, but is rather a trade-mark.9 6 Copyright in newspapers.-The courts seem to have sometimes doubted, as to whether newspapers were intended to be protected by the Copyright Act. But a newspaper is included within the definition of a book, 1 Bogue v Houlston, 5 De G. & S. 275; Bradbury v Hotten, L. R., 8 Ex. 1. 2 Trusler v Murray, 1 East, 363, n. Hotten v Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603. 4 Rundell v Murray, Jac. 314. 5 Lover v Davidson, 1 C. B., N. S. 182. 6 Wood v Boosey, 7 B. & S. 869. 7 Sweet v Cater, 11 Sim. 572; Murray v Bogue, 1 Drewr. 353. 9 Correspondent Co. v Saunders, 8 Low v Ward, L. R., 6 Eq. 418. 12 L. T., N. S. 540; Maxwell v Hogg, L. R., 2 Ch. 307; Kelly Hutton, L. R., 3 Ch. 703. for it is a sheet of letterpress. It cannot be said correctly, that a newspaper does not come within those words,2 nor within the words "periodical work," in the 19th section. Whatever may be the position of a newspaper as regards copyright in its contents, the court will protect the proprietor against imitating the title of the paper. The sole reason why actions and injunctions for infringement are seldom resorted to is the extremely ephemeral nature of the contents; for before any remedy is applied the memory of both the subject of copyright and its infringement will usually have perished. But no other consideration seems to preclude the same remedies as if the newspaper were a book. If MS. or book is immoral, or blasphemous, or seditious.-Though the writer of an unpublished MS. either has a right of property in the document, or has the right to mature it and so ultimately render it a subject of property by publication, this must be taken to be subordinate to the general rule, that the document must not contain in itself something so mischievous in tendency as when published to subject its publisher to indictment or other punishment for blasphemy, or indecency, or gross immorality, or sedition. If such is the case, no person can claim to be treated by any court of law or equity to protection or assistance as its owner or quasi owner. Thus where in the Birmingham riots Dr. Priestley's house was demolished and his MS. destroyed, it was held or assumed that he could claim no compensation for a manuscript, for when published it would tend to incite people against the Government. Thus the Court of Chancery refused at the instance of Southey, the author of Wat Tyler, to give the usual relief of injunction against the person who published it. The standard, however, of what is libellous or blasphemous may vary according to the state of civilisation and the progress of education, and what was once deemed, whether by judges or juries, libellous, as reviling the Scriptures or constituted authorities, may no longer be so treated. Thus the judges in Chancery in 1822 and 1823 treated Lord 1 5 & 6 Vic. c. 45, § 2. Case, 2 Meriv. 437. 2 Cox v Land & Water, L. R., 9 Eq. R., 3 Ch. Ap. 708. 4 Priestley's Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 438; Lawrence |