Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/102

 90

��Copyright Act, 1911

��§ 9. as the building then in course of construction is concerned,

— : and if he can establish that he is an innocent infringer

within the meaning of sect. 8 he will be able to resist a claim for any relief other than an injunction; that is to say, if the infringer immediately gives his undertaking not to erect aiij other building which will infringe the plaintiff's copyright, the plaintiff will be entitled to no further relief.

��§10.

��Limitation of actions.

��10. An action in respect of infringement [k] of copyright (/) shall not be commenced after the exjnration of tln-ee years next after the infringe- ment.

��Time from which limita- tion nms.

��Question whether limitation applies to proceedings under sect. 7.

��Infringement includes selling or otherwise dealing with an infringement contrary to the provisions of sect. 2 (2). The period of limitation commences therefore to run afresh in the case of each repetition of the offence o£ selling. &c. (m).

It is doubtful whether the section applies to proceed- ings taken under sect. 7 for delivery up, or damages for conversion. Such proceedings would not be taken in respect of infringement of copyright, but in respect of the detention or conversion of the plaintiff's property, and, it is submitted, would not be barred until six years after the conversion, or in the case of copies still in the defen- dant's 230ssession, until six years after a formal demand for delivery up.

��Existing law. — Under the Copyright Act, 1842, s. 26, all actions "for any offence that shall be committed against this Act " must be commenced within twelve calendar months next after the oft'ence committed. It is doubtful whether this limitation applies to any action except an action for penalties (h). In one case Ivekewich, J., gave judgment for damages under sect. 23 in respect of sales dating back ten years before the issue of the writ (o). In Canada it has

��{k) Sect. 2.

{l) Sect. 1 (2).

(»») Soffg V. Scott (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 444 : Macmillan v. Sure^h Chunder Beb (1890), Ind. L. R. 17 Calc. 951.

(«) Soggy. Scott (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 444; Stewart v. Black (1846), 9 D. 1026 ; Wcldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D. 247, 262 ; Clark v. Belt (1804), Mor. Die, "Literary Property." App. 9.

(o) Muddock V. Blackwood, [1898] 1 Ch. 58.

�� �