Commentary on Defoe's Essay on the Regulation of the Press (1704)

Treatise in which Daniel Defoe sets out his arguments concerning the importance of maintaining a free press, as well as the need to provide for a statutory protection to prevent the ‘press-piracy' of published books.
Defoe sets out various public interest arguments concerning the encouragement of learning, industry and the arts, in support of his case for the introduction of copyright legislation. The commentary describes part of the background to the passing of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710), in particular: the various unsuccessful attempts to reintroduce an alternative to the Licensing Act 1662 (uk_1662); Defoe's public writing on the need for, and social value of, copyright protection; and the influence of his writings in providing the Company of Stationers with a new rhetorical strategy with which to lobby parliament and secure the passing of the Statute of Anne.

Commentary on the Statute of Anne 1710

Legislation conferring exclusive rights upon the author of books not yet printed or published for a period of 14 years and for a further 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first period. The legislation also provided the same rights for the authors or owners of books already in print for a single 21 year term.
The commentary describes the background to the Act detailing the manner in which the legislation was amended as it passed through parliament, and highlights particular flaws in the drafting. The commentary argues that, although the Act sought to both secure the interests of the Stationers while at the same time regulating the general operation of the book trade, the primary concern of the legislature lay in the encouragement and advancement of learning.

Commentary on Burnet v. Chetwood (1721)

Chancery case concerning the publication of a translation of a work protected under the Statute of Anne 1710. The decision established that the reproduction of works in translation was not unlawful under the 1710 Act. The decision is also significant, however, in relation to the court's inherent jurisdiction concerning the publication of works on grounds of public policy.
Drawing upon material in the National Archives the commentary explores the background to, and substance of, the decision as well as its relationship with current judicial practices in refusing the court's protection to copyright protected materials on the grounds that the content of the work is, for example, obscene, sexually immoral, defamatory, blasphemous or irreligious.

Commentary on the Engravers' Act (1735)

Legislation conferring exclusive rights, for a period of 14 years, on persons inventing and designing engravings and similar works. This was first occasion on which British copyright legislation extended to something other than literary works. The commentary describes the background to the Act, in particular the lobbying efforts of a small group of artists and engravers led by William Hogarth, and details similarities and differences which the legislation bore to the Statute of Anne 1710. The commentary suggests that, whereas the Statute of Anne essentially sought to regulate the production of the physical book, with the Engravers' Act the legislature began to articulate a more subtle distinction between the physical object and the subject of copyright protection, which was in this case, the engraved image.

Commentary on the Booksellers' Bill (1737)

This Bill marks the first occasion on which the British legislature proposed to confer upon authors a lifetime interest in their literary works (with an additional eleven year post-mortem term vesting in their estates), as well as limited rights of translation and abridgement. In addition the draft legislation proposed to render null and void any contract purporting to assign an author's rights to another for a period of longer than ten years.
The commentary describes the background to the Bill, and in particular the attempts of the London book trade to secure more extensive legislative protection in both 1735 and 1737. It argues that the 1737 Bill is significant precisely because it was never made into law, and because it did not suit the best interests of the metropolitan booksellers. Instead, the book trade increasingly turned to the courts to further secure their commercial interests, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as the ‘battle of the booksellers' throughout the next 40 years.

Commentary on Baller v. Watson (1737)

This case marks the first occasion, following the passage of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710), on which a living author sought to prevent the infringement of his own copyright before the courts, as well as the first time on which a ‘perpetual' injunction was granted to prevent the further unauthorised reproduction of the work.
The commentary describes the circumstances which led Gay to publish the work himself, by subscription, as well as the success he enjoyed (albeit posthumously) in preventing unauthorised versions of the work from being published. That a ‘perpetual' injunction was granted at the conclusion of the litigation was subsequently interpreted, by advocates of common law copyright, to suggest that, regardless of the Statute of Anne, the Lord Chancellor considered copyright to be a perpetual right.

The Statute of Anne and the Great Abridgement Swindle

There are many things that we know about the Statute of Anne with reasonable certitude. We know that it was prefaced by a period of sustained lobbying on the part of the book trade. We know that on January 11, 1710 a bill was introduced in the House of Commons in response to this lobbying and that, less than three months later, on April 5, 1710, the act that is now commonly referred to as the Statute of Anne was passed. And we also know that the Act that was passed differed in many significant respects from the bill as it was originally introduced to parliament.
There are, however, many things that we don't - or can't - know about the Statute of Anne. This article considers one of those things that we don't or can't know; the extent to which the Act was intended to regulate the unauthorised production of derivative versions of published work (in this case, abridgements) if, indeed, it was intended to regulate the production of such works at all.

Commentary on Gyles v. Wilcox (1741)

Case in which Lord Hardwicke introduces the concept of the ‘fair abridgement', and which is generally regarded as the forerunner to the broader doctrine of ‘fair use' developed in the courts throughout the nineteenth century. The document includes two different reports of the decision, as well as an essay by Samuel Johnson on the right to abridge an author's work.
The commentary describes the background to the case, in particular the nature of periodical publication throughout the eighteenth century, the rise of the magazine format in the 1730s, as well as relevant case-law both prior to, and following, the decision. The commentary suggests that while the decision in Gyles can be understood as one guided by public interest arguments similar to those informing the rationale behind the Statute of Anne 1710 (that is, the encouragement of learning and production of useful books) (uk_1710), it can equally be regarded as one in which the court, in effect, expanded the rights of the copyright owner beyond the protections provided by the legislation.

Commentary on Pope v. Curl (1741)

Decision of the Chancery Court concerning the unpublished correspondence of Alexander Pope, in which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke draws a distinction between the ownership of a letter, as a physical document, and the right to authorise the first publication of that letter, a right which he concludes remains with the author of the same.
Drawing upon the Public Records Office Archives the commentary explores the background to, and substance of, the decision, the nature and significance of epistolary correspondence in eighteenth century society, and subsequent related commentary and case-law. The commentary argues that the decision is of particular significance in the development of the concept of the author's text as intangible property.

Commentary on Warburton's Letter from an Author (1747)

The first of a number of public commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate over the nature of literary property (see also: An Enquiry into the Nature of Literary Property (uk_1762a); An Argument in Defence of Literary Property (uk_1774a)).
Warburton, a strong proponent of the common law rights of the author, provided the first significant commentary upon the nature and classification of property and its relevance to, and relationship with, an author's work. Part of this commentary discusses Warburton's attempts to articulate a clear conceptual distinction between the claim of an inventor to the protection of a patent provided by the state, and the natural right of an author to the property in his work.

Commentary on Tonson v. Collins (1762)

Significant case in which the arguments for and against the existence of copyright at common law were extensively debated for the first time before the Court of King's Bench. Both William Blackstone (author of Commentaries Upon the Laws of England, and one of the judges to hold in favour of the common law right in Donaldson v. Becket (uk_1774)) and Joseph Yates (who would later provide the dissenting opinion in Millar v. Taylor (uk_1769)) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

Commentary on An Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Literary Property (1762)

One of a number of published commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate concerning the nature of literary property. The author of An Enquiry sought to repudiate the concept of a natural authorial property right existing at common law. In so doing, he specifically engaged with various aspects of William Warburton's earlier commentary (see: uk_1747), as well as presenting arguments that drew upon the nature of property in general, the differences between the right claimed by proponents of the common law right and other acknowledged incorporeal properties, the similarities between patents and copyright, the history of literary property, the experience of other jurisdictions (drawing upon Venice in particular), and the consequences that would follow from conceding the existence of a perpetual right both for authors in particular and society in general. This commentary, in turn, drew its own response in the guise of A Vindication of the Exclusive Rights of Authors, to their own work (1762).

Commentary on Millar v. Taylor (1769)

Decision of the Court of King's Bench providing that, regardless of the provisions of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710), an author enjoyed the exclusive right of publishing his work in perpetuity.
Lord Mansfield, leading a majority decision of the court, provides a robust and influential justification as to the existence of an author's rights in literary property at common law. Yates, J., focussing upon the potential detriment to the public that would flow from the existence of a perpetual right, provides the dissenting opinion. The commentary explores the background to the litigation, in particular the nature of the threat which the Scottish reprint industry posed to the London book trade, relevant case-law leading up to the decision, as well as the substance of the judicial opinions.

Commentary on Hinton v. Donaldson (1773)

The Scottish Court of Session, drawing upon principles of the civil law tradition, as well as arguments concerning broader national, social and cultural interests, reject the concept of copyright at common law - a decision that is in direct conflict with that of Millar v. Taylor (1769). Lord Monboddo provides the dissenting opinion, drawing upon the labour theory of property rights, and argues for a unified approach to the issue in relation to the common law of both England and Scotland.
Drawing upon Scottish Records Office archives the commentary explores the background to, and substance of, the decision. It suggests that, given the nature of the economic threat which the Scottish reprint industry posed to the London book trade, particularly in relation to an increasingly lucrative export market, Hinton undermined much of the value of the decision in Millar. The conflict between Millar and Hinton made it almost inevitable that the question of literary property would soon reach the House of Lords.