Proprietor's Name.1-As to what will probably be a sufficient statement of the proprietor's name, see the cases on engravings 2 on which also the proprietor's name is required. As to this provision the two statutes seem to be in pari materia and the cases equally applicable to both. Date. It is not stated what date: but there can be no reasonable doubt but that the date of first publication is intended. The older statute governing sculptures 3 (now repealed) required the proprietor's name and "date of publication." The International Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, in reciting the provisions as to sculptures, runs "and by the said Acts it is provided that the name of the proprietor, with the date of first publication thereof, is to be put on all such sculptures." It should be noticed, however, that both statutes were then in operation and 38 Geo. III. c. 71 had not yet been repealed, so that the recitation in 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12 may apply only to the provision in 38 Geo. III. c 71, and is not necessarily explanatory of 54 Geo. III. c. 36. There can be no doubt, however, that the omission in 54 Geo. III. c. 56 to state what date was required was an oversight, and everything points to its being the date of first publication that is meant. The statutory protection begins then, and from then the duration of the copyright is measured so that there is strong reason for the public being apprised of the date of first publication, while the date of making, which is the only other conceivable date, is of no importance. When the date affixed was a date a few days before publication, Wright, J., held it was immaterial, as it would only shorten the term of the copyright.5 Immoral Works.—Profane, libellous, or indecent works will not be protected. There are no direct authorities in respect of unlawful works of sculpture, but as in books, paintings," and engravings the general policy of the law not to take an account between wrong-doers will apply. Duration of Protection.-Statutory protection commences on 1 As to work done by partner of a firm, see Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902. 2 See p. 151. 3 38 Geo. III. c. 71. 4 Viz., 38 Geo. III. c. 71, and 54 Geo. III. c. 56. 5 Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902. 6 See p. 46. 7 See p. 174. 8 See p. 152. publication.1 Before publication the unpublished work will be protected at common law from any use which may be made of it without the permission of the owner. After publication the statutory protection alone exists and subsists for fourteen years 2 with a further term of fourteen years if at the expiration of the first term the person who originally made or caused the sculpture to be made is alive and has not parted with the copyright.3 SECTION II.-THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT. The Artist. If a work of sculpture is made by an artist on his own behalf he becomes on publication the proprietor of the copyright if before publication he has not assigned his interest in the work. The Employer. If one procures an artist to make a work of sculpture for him the employer will be ab initio the owner of the copyright without any necessity for assignment from the artist. In order so to vest the work the employer, it would seem, requires to take no part in the invention or design of the work. If he causes the work to be done, he comes within the Act. No valuable consideration need be shown. The Assignee.-Assignment must be under seal, i.e. by a deed in writing signed by the proprietor in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses.* SECTION III.-INFRINGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT. Prohibited Acts and Remedies.-The Act (54 Geo. III. c. 56) gives to the proprietor "the sole right and property" of works in sculpture. 154 Geo. III. c. 56, secs. 1 and 2. 2 Ibid. 3 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 6; cf. Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311. 4 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. The prohibited Acts are1— 1. Making a pirated copy. 2. Importing a pirated copy. 3. Exposing for sale or otherwise disposing of a pirated copy. 4. Causing any of these acts to be done. The remedy is an action at the suit of the proprietor for 2— i. Damages. ii. Injunction. iii. Costs-" a full and reasonable indemnity."3 Guilty Knowledge.-Ignorance is no defence to an action in respect of any of the prohibited Acts, even that of selling. Limitation of Action.-All actions under the Act must be commenced within six months of the discovery of the offence sued on. Copying for Private Use.-Either making or importing a single copy for private use would technically be an infringement. The prohibition is not limited to making or importing for sale, hire, exhibition, or distribution, as in the case of paintings, &c., under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6. What is a Piratical Copy.-A pirated copy may be "produced by moulding or copying from or imitating in any way any of the matters or things put forth or published under the protection of the Act. . . to the detriment, damage, or loss of the proprietor." 4 The prohibition is against "imitating in any way." This prohibition does not seem so wide as that in 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, which prohibits the multiplication of a painting or drawing or the design thereof. It is more similar to the prohibition in the Engraving Act 8 Geo. II. c. 13, viz., against engraving, &c., "or in any manner copying" a copyright print. It seems therefore to be open to question as with engravings whether a piece of sculpture can be infringed except by some work of art 154 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 4. 3 The Sculpture Act gives 2 Ibid. 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. 4 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 3. which reproduces the peculiar art of the sculptor. Would a piece of sculpture be infringed by a picture, sketch, or engraving copying the design of the work? Licence would be a defence, and it probably does not require to be in writing. There is nothing in the Act from which the necessity for a licence to be in writing could be implied. CHAPTER VIII COPYRIGHT IN PAINTINGS, DRAWINGS, AND SECTION I.-WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED. THE following works are protected under the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862: 1 1. Every original painting, drawing, and photograph : 4. Which has been registered before infringement : 4 Protection vests at the date of making, and endures for the author's life and seven years. Protection is limited to the United Kingdom.7 Every Original Painting, Drawing, and Photograph.-There is no attempt to define what is a painting, drawing, or photograph within the meaning of the Act. The substances used in the making are no doubt immaterial, so long as the result is ejusdem generis with what is ordinarily meant by a picture, drawing, or photograph. A painting on the wall of a house would doubtless be protected, but not a design created by grouping figures in a tableau vivant.? Originality as an essential of protection means that there must be something either in the design or execution of the work which is not merely copied from some other artistic work. The whole work need not be original. Thus the execution may be original but not the design, as in the case of a photograph of an 7 See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186. 9 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 2 Ch., 1. 3 See p. 170. 6 See p. 174. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. I. |