Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/50

 '>8 Copyright Act, 1911.

8 2 (1) (y). ^^^^ representatives (g-). Except therefore in the rare cases where

,z ^ the provisions of the Lectures Copyright Act were observed, such

EXISTING LAW. works have become absolutely free in so far as the right of the author of the lecture, speech, or sermon is concerned.

When the lectures, sermons, or speeches we're not delivered in public, but to a limited audience drawn from a limited class of the public, or were otherwise delivered under such circumstances as would imply a confidential relationship between speaker and audience, such as university or college lectures, then there is no publication and the common law right of property in the lecture, sermon, or speech remains intact (7).

Whether or not the speaker retained or abandoned his right of proi")erty in the words sj)oken, if they were in fact reported without objection on the part of the speaker and published, the reporter acquired an independent copyright in the report as the author of a book(/').

§ 2 (1) (vi). (vi) The reading or recitation in public by one person of any reasonable extract from any published work (6-).

Scope of the The question whether an extract is reasonable or not

privilege. must probablv be decided wit h regard to the possible in-

jury to the commercial value of the work utilised. Where the work is not primarily adapted for public reading or recitation, no doubt large extracts may be permitted, but -where a work is such that part of the fruits Avhich the author may reasonably expect to gather are the pro- ceeds of public performance, delivery, reading, or recita- tion, then only a comparatively small extract Avould be reasonable.

But for this jiaragraph the reading or recitation in public of any extract from a literary work would be an infringement of the sole right of public performanoe, which includes the sole right of acoustic representation. The paragraph applies to any published work, and there- fore to dramatic works. There is nothing in the para- graph which expressly permits or prohibits I'ecitation in character costume. It is doubtful, however, whether this would not be deemed to be more than a recitation. It

��{q) Caird v. Slmc (1887), 12 A. C. 326; Walter v. Lane, [1900] A. C. 539 ; MacMin v. Richardson (1770), Amb. 694 : D'AfiiKunc v. Boosei/ (1835), 1 Y. & C. 268.

•) Walter v. Lane, [1900] A. C. 539.

(s) Sects. 1 (3), 35 (2).

�� �