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.

Commentary on Stationers' Company v. Carnan (1775)

Case in which the Court of Common Pleas decided that the Crown did not have the authority to grant exclusive prerogative rights over the printing of almanacs, a monopoly which the Stationers' Company had enjoyed, uncontested, since the formation of the ‘English Stock' in the early seventeenth century.
The commentary describes the background to the litigation, as well as the various strategies that the Stationers' Company employed in their efforts to regain control of the almanac market in the wake of the decision. It also explores how the decision provided the springboard for the emergence of a more contemporary concept of prerogative copyright. It was no longer thought that the Crown could grant printing patents over certain classes of work as of right. Rather, it was the monarch's unique constitutional position as head of both church and state that imposed an obligation to ensure the dissemination of authentic and authoritative versions of both legal and religious materials, and, from this obligation, the right to print the same arose.

Commentary on Bach v. Longman (1777)

A case, initiated by two composers, Johann Christian Bach and Karl Friedrich Abel, concerning whether or not printed music fell within the protection of the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710). Lord Mansfield holds that published music is protected as ‘writing' within the terms of the legislation.
The commentary explores attitudes to the protection of music throughout the eighteenth century on the part of publishers, composers and musicians, and in particular the use of the printing privilege by some composers to secure the right to publish their work, and the efforts of the music publishers to secure legislative protection in the mid-eighteenth century.

Commentary on the Calico Printers' Act 1787

Legislation conferred exclusive rights lasting two months on those first printing 'new and original' patterns on linens, cottons, calicoes and muslins.
The commentary describes the background to the Act, the challenge which the Northern cotton and printing industry presented to those printing fashionable cottons and calicoes in London, as well as the significance of the cotton industry to the British economy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Against this backdrop, the commentary also explores why it was that the protection provided by the legislature was limited to two months only, by comparison with the more generous copyright terms provided by the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710) and the Engravers' Acts (uk_1735; uk_1766; uk_1777).

Commentary on the Models and Busts Act 1798

The first occasion on which British copyright law provided protection for a medium other than print. The legislation conferred exclusive rights lasting 14 years on persons who created new models or casts of human or animal figures.
The commentary describes the background to the Act, in particular the lobbying efforts of the artist and sculptor George Garrard, as well as the subsequent case-law, highlighting flaws in the drafting that lead to a further act in 1814. The commentary argues that while the 1798 Act is pre-modern, in the sense of having a reactive and subject-specific remit, by severing copyright from its print basis, the Act paved the way for the emergence of the modern image of copyright as concerned with the promotion of ‘art and literature'.

Commentary on Beckford v. Hood (1798)

Case in which the King's Bench decided that a plaintiff could recover damages at common law for copyright infringement even though his work had not been registered with the Stationers' Company in accordance with the formalities set out in the Statute of Anne 1710 (uk_1710).
The case provides the first occasion on which the judiciary revisited and reconsidered the meaning of the House of Lords' decision in Donaldson v. Becket (uk_1774). The commentary explores the substance and significance of the decision and, in particular, the influence it had upon the manner in which the decision in Donaldson was subsequently understood throughout the early nineteenth century. The commentary also details the impact the decision had upon the extent to which publishers would adhere to the library deposit provision within the copyright legislation.

Commentary on Maugham's Treatise on the Laws of Literary Property (1828)

The first British legal treatise dedicated specifically to the law of copyright written by a strong advocate of the common law rights of the author. Maugham, in addition to providing a commentary upon the law of copyright, also used his work to lobby for both an extension to the copyright term (ideally resulting in a perpetual right) and a reduction in the library deposit requirements (arguing that authors should only be required to deposit one copy of their work for the British Museum). In proselytising the need for a change to the law in both areas he drew frequent comparisons with the law of other jurisdictions (in particular France and Germany). The work became a standard point of reference for many British and American authors who followed.

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.

Commentary on Lowndes

This was the first British treatise dedicated specifically to the history of copyright law. The second edition, published in the same year as the passage of the Copyright Amendment Act 1842 (see: uk_1842) and the edition referred to in this commentary, was dedicated to the Sergeant Thomas Noon Talfourd, the driving force behind the 1842 Act, "for his generous advocacy of the rights of authors". Lowndes was a strong proponent of the natural rights of the author and his historical account reflects as much. The second edition is also notable in terms of drawing comparisons with various continental models of copyright protection in advocating a longer term of protection for literary works within the UK.

Commentary on Foreign Reprints Act 1847

Legislation enabling colonial territories to import unauthorised foreign reprints subject to the payment of an import duty, to be collected for the benefit of British publishers.
The commentary explores the background to the Foreign Reprints Act 1847, and in particular, the differences between the British and colonial markets for literary works, and the introduction of 'responsible government' in the colonies. It also considers the movement in the late 1860s and early 1870s, on the part of the British book trade, to have the legislation repealed, as well as the efforts of the Canadian legislature to replace the import scheme with a system of compulsory licensing, set against the backdrop of increasingly fractious Anglo-Canadian copyright relations. The Canadian demands for compulsory licensing scheme were by and large abandoned, and the 1847 Act remained on the statute books until the passing of the Copyright Act 1911.

Commentary on Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854)

The second decision of the House of Lords to consider the nature of copyright law. As was the case in Donaldson v. Becket (1774) (uk_1774) the law lords were in disagreement with the majority of common law judges invited to speak to the issue for the consideration of the House. In the course of their opinions, two of the law lords (Lord Brougham and Lord St Leonards) explicitly reject the concept of copyright at common law. Rather than a natural authorial property right, they present copyright as a purely statutory phenomenon specifically grounded in public interest concerns. Ultimately, the Lords decided that a foreign national, resident abroad, but first publishing in Britain, enjoys no protection in his work under British copyright law.

Seven lectures on the law and history of copyright in books /

Mode of access: Internet.