Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/43

 Rights. 31

permitted the appropriation of paragrajilis of news by one news- 8 2(1) (i).

paper from anotlier provided (1) the source was acknowledged,

(2) the papers were not direct rivals, (3) there was give and take existing law.

between the papers, and (4) no expressed objection. It was held

that there was no custom which permitted such appropriation (/).

In some of the earlier cases it was deemed to be admissible in the Piracy not interests of science and knowledge to ajipropriate the work of excused by another provided that it was rendered more useful by correction reason of im- and addition ('Hi). In one case. Shad well, V.-C, went as far as to pro^v'enients say that a person might copy and publish the whole of a literary '^'^'^^ additions, composition, provided he wrote notes upon it and presented it to the i)ublic connected with matter of his own(?<). Gradually, however, the Courts came to look more to the interests of the author than to those of the public, and in none of the later cases is addition, correction or improvement regarded as a legitimate excuse for making a substantial appropriation from any copyright work (o).

The same principle which justified the taking of anothei^'s work, Abridgments, provided that it was improved or added to, was also held to justify what were called "fair abridgments " (/<). The abridgment was permitted on the ground that it assisted in the diffusion of know- ledge and so was a benefit to mankind. The right of publishing an abridgment is, however, inconsistent with the 23riuciple of many modern decisions, and it is doubtful whether any abridgment would now be permitted (5).

Multiplication of copies is an infringement of copyright under Copies made the Act of 1842, even although the copies are made for private use for private or gratuitous distribution (r). use.

(ii) Where the author (s) of an artistic work(^^) § 2 (i) (ii). is not the owner of the copyright therein,

��(/) Walter v. Stimkopff, [1892] 3 Ch. 489.

{m) Sayer v. Moore (1785), 1 East, 361, n. ; Cary v. Kcarsley (1802), 4 Esp. 168 ; Carnan v. Bauer (1786), 1 Cox, Eq. Cas. 283.

(»0 Martin v. Wright (1833), 6 Sim. 297-

(o) D'Almaine v. Boo.sey (1835), 1 Y. & C. Ex. 288 ; Wame v. Seebohin (188S), 39 Ch. D. 73; Oxford ^- Cambridge v. Gill (1899), 43 S. J. 570; Jarrold v. Houhton (1857), 3 K. & J. 708 ; Kelly v. Morris (1868). L. E.

1 Eq. 697 ; Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 718.

[p) Gyles V. Wilcox (1740), 2 Atk. 142; Tonson v. Walker (1752),

2 Swans. 672, 682 ; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr. 2303, 2311 ; Bell v. Walker (1785), 1 Bro. C. C. 450 ; Murray v. Elliston (1822), 1 Dow & Ry. 299; Butterivorth v. liohinsoii (1801), b Ves. 709; Dodsley v. Kinnersley (1761), Amb. 402; Anonymous Case (1774), Lofft, 775; D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. & C. Ex. 288.

(<7) Dickens v. Zee (1844), 8 Jm-. 183, 184 ; Tinslei/ v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. & M. 747, 754 ; Spiers v. Brotcn (1858), 6 W. R. 352.

{r) Alexander v. Mackenzie (1847), 9 D. 748 ; Sotten v. Arthur {186B), 1 H. & M. 603; ^^ovello v. Sadlotc (1852), 12 C. B. 177; Ager v. The F. 4- 0. (1884), 26 Ch. D. 637.

(s) Sects. 16 (2), 21.

[t) Sect. 35 (1) (" Artistic work").

�� �