he copies from another engraving he may see how the person who engraved that has produced the desired effect, and so without skill or attention become a successful rival.” 1

Map, Chart, or Plan.-It will be remembered that maps, charts, and plans are included under the definition of books in the Copyright Act, 1842,2 and receive protection as such. Doubt has consequently been raised as to whether a map must comply with both the Engraving Acts and the Literary Act in order to obtain protection, or whether it will be sufficient to comply with the requirements of one only, and if so, which. The decided cases are unsatisfactory. In Stannard v. Lee3 protection was claimed for a "Panoramic Bird's-eye view of France and Prussia," with the railway and strategic positions illustrating the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. This was not registered as a book under the Copyright Act, 1842, and the objection was held to be fatal. The judges in the Court of Appeal seemed to be of opinion that the Act of 1842 had taken maps, charts, and plans out of the protection of the Engraving Acts and placed them under the protection of the Literary Act, consequently that the requirements of the latter and not of the Engraving Acts must be observed. James, L.J., said :

"It was reasonable and proper to take a map out of the class of artistic copyrights and to give to it the better and more complete copyright which is intended to be given to literary works. And there would be, as I have pointed out clearly, great inconvenience in having two laws of copyright as to two sets of maps or as to the same set of maps.'

Mellish, L.J., said :—

"4

"I think it is a perfectly rational enactment that maps shall no longer be included among works of art but be classed in future with literary works." 5

After this case had been decided a petition was brought to the Court praying that another case, Stannard v. Harrison, in which the same map had been copied, and to which the de

1 Per Best, C.J., in Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., at p. 246.

2 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. I.

3 Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; 24 L. T. (N.S.), 459.

4 L. T. (N.S.), at p. 460.

24

6 (1871), 24 L. T. (N.S.), 570.

5

19 W. R., at p. 617.

fendants had consented to a decree for injunction and damages, should be reheard. Bacon, V.C., refused the petition, and indicated in the course of his judgment that a map not registered as a book might be protected as an engraving if the claim was properly stated. The judgment in Stannard v. Lee,1 he said, had gone on a question of pleading, the plaintiffs having voluntarily brought their map under the category of books. This is by no means a satisfactory explanation of the decision in the Court of Appeal, as it is abundantly clear from the judgments as reported that in the view of the Lords Justices the Copyright Act, 1842, took maps, charts, and plans out of the category of artistic works and placed them in the category of literary works. Whether this is a correct view is another matter, but at present it would seem to be law. It is submitted that the true view probably is that a map may be protected under either Act if the requisite formalities are observed. The Literary will probably give a wider protection than the Engraving Acts. The Engraving Acts will protect a map from infringement of the method of execution, that is to say, the work which is the peculiar work of the engraver; while the Literary Act will protect it not only from that, but from a piratical taking of information imparted. Thus suppose a map of India giving battles and dates and, say, the principal products of the various districts marked with printed letters on the surface. It is difficult to see how the taking of all these dates and products and placing them perhaps printed in different letters on the new map could be an infringement of the engraving copyright in the map; there is nothing in the nature of a design or drawing taken; and yet it is quite clear it will be an infringement under the protection afforded by a literary copyright, because there is a taking of the particular expression by which information is imparted.

Engravings in a book are protected by the Copyright Act, 1842, as part of the book, and, as such, do not require to comply with the requirements of the Engraving Acts.2 The protection of a print forming part of a book is probably a double one, and if it

1 (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346.

2 Bogue v. Houlston (1852), 5 De G. and Sm., 267; Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369; Comyns v. Hyde (1895), 43 W. R., 266; Hildesheimer v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. (N.S.), 452.

had the name and date inscribed would be protected without registration or notwithstanding faulty registration of the book.

Must the Engraving be made within the British Dominions. -The Act 17 Geo. III. c. 57 giving a remedy by action for damages is expressly confined to works made in Great Britain. The other two Acts, 8 Geo. II. c. 13 and 7 Geo. III. c. 38, are not expressly limited to works there made, but it has been held that the limitation is to be supplied in them.1

"It is plain that the object of the legislature was to protect those works which were designed, engraved, etched, or worked in Great Britain, and not those which were designed, engraved, etched, or worked abroad, and only published in Great Britain." 2

The Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 59 extends the application of the Engraving Acts to Ireland, and in section 2 there is a general proviso protecting "any engraving or print of any description whatever . . . which may have been or which shall hereafter be published in any part of Great Britain or Ireland." It is quite arguable that this extends the protection to engravings wherever made if published in the United Kingdom; but probably it would be held to be only applicable to engravings made in the United Kingdom, and is merely a proviso that there will be no copyright until publication in the United Kingdom. The point, however, is one of great uncertainty.

Under the International Copyright Act, 1886,3 works first produced anywhere within the British dominions are protected equally with those first produced in the United Kingdom. The doubt still remains whether the engraving must not be made as well as first published within the British dominions.

The Engraving must be first Published within the British Dominions.-There is no protection until publication except at common law. Publication is an act which gives to the public an opportunity on payment or otherwise of viewing the print. There may probably be publication without offering copies for sale or distribution. See as to publication of books 5 and pictures; but the analogy is not complete with either.

6

There seems to be no direct authority as to what constitutes publication of an engraving.

Before 1886 the work had to be published in the United Kingdom.1 Now first publication anywhere within the British dominions will be sufficient to secure the copyright.2

Date of First Publication and Proprietor's Name.-It is condition precedent to protection that there must be truly engraved on each plate, and printed on every print or prints 3——— i. The name of the proprietor;

ii. The day of first publication.

This qualification of the engraver's right is only inserted in 8 Geo. II. c. 13, and not in the subsequent Acts which extend the protection to works not there included and give remedies not there given. It has been held, however, that as the Acts are in pari materia they must be taken together, and the qualification in the first read into the others.4

The proviso as to the name and date is a condition precedent to protection, and not merely directory.5 In one case Lord Hardwicke thought that, although no action for penalties would lie unless the name and date were correctly published, an injunction might be granted even although the name and date were not published at all. He was probably wrong.

Name of Proprietor.-There is some little doubt as to whether this must be the name of the person who was proprietor at the date of first publication or at the date on which protection is claimed. In Thompson v. Symonds' Lord Kenyon said :—

"The name of the proprietor should appear in order that those who wish to copy it might know to whom to apply for consent. It seems, therefore, necessary that the date should remain, but that the name of the proprietor should be altered as often as the property is changed."

1 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 59, sec. 2; Page v. Townsend (1832), 5 Sim., 395.

2 7 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).

3 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

4 Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Brooks v. Cock (1835), 3 Ad. and E., 138.

5 Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41; Harrison v. Hogg (1794), 2 Ves., 322; Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Brooks v. Cock (1835), 3 Ad. and E., 138; Mackmurdo v. Smith (1798), 7 T. R., 518.

94.

6 Blackwell v. Harper (1740), 2 Atk., 93; and see Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp.,

7 (1792), 5 T. R., 41.

If his name is there it

But Buller, J., in the same case, thought the proprietor always meant the inventor and first proprietor, notwithstanding the property had passed to his assignee. The point is certainly doubtful, but the latter view that the name of the first proprietor only need be on the print seems the more reasonable, and not contrary to the wording of the Act. The proprietor need not be described as such on the plate. is sufficient, even if there is more than one name and it is uncertain which is the proprietor.2 The proprietor need not be described by his full name, his surname is sufficient. When a partnership firm are proprietors of an engraving the trading name of the firm is a sufficient designation, inasmuch as it enables parties to know whom to apply to for information.* If a single proprietor trades under the designation of A. B. & Co. that is a sufficient designation.5

Immoral Works.-There will be no copyright in profane, libellous, or indecent prints.

Duration of Protection.-The statutory right begins on publication, and runs for twenty-eight years from the day of first publishing."

After publication protection will depend entirely on the statute.8

Before publication there is a common law right to prevent all interference with what is a man's private property, and to protect this the formalities prescribed by the statute need not be complied with.

SECTION II.-THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT.

The Engraver.-The persons to whom the copyright is given by the Acts are, "Every person and persons who shall

1 Blackwell v. Harper (1740), 2 Atk., 93; Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.

2 Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41. 3 Ibid.

4 Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq., 104.

5 Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.

6 Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard [1900], I Ch., 73; Fores v. Johnes (1802),

4 Esp., 97.

7 7 Geo. III. c. 38, sec. 7.

8 Donaldson v. Beckett (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.

9 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M‘N. and G., 25; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.