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Decision of the Chancery Court concerning the unpublished correspondence of Alexander Pope, in which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke draws a distinction between the ownership of a letter, as a physical document, and the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 Copyright Amendment Act 1842

The Act providing authors with the first post-mortem term of copyright protection. The term of copyright was to last either for the life of the author plus seven years after his or her death, or for forty-two years from the first publication of the same (whichever was longer). The commentary briefly discusses Thomas Noon Talfourd's repeated attempts to secure such legislation between 1837 and 1841, the opposition he experienced thereto (including Thomas Babington Macaulay's famous speech in the House of Commons on 5 February 1841 against extending the copyright term), and the success which Lord Mahon had in finally securing the Act in 1842.

Commentary on Publication of Lectures Act 1835

Legislation conferring the exclusive right of printing and publishing certain lectures for the same term of protection provided by the existing copyright legislation (see: Statute of Anne, uk_1710; Copyright Act, uk_1814). This was the first occasion on which the legislature extended copyright protection to works in the oral form. The legislation is of interest in terms of the distinction it draws between lectures delivered within the 'public' and the 'private' spheres (lectures delivered at a University, for example, are not protected), in terms of articulating the nature of the relationship between a speaker and his audience, and in specifically clarifying that newspapers are similarly prohibited from reporting protected lectures. The commentary explores the background to the passing of the Act, and in particular the role which Henry Brougham played in proposing and securing the same.