Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/52

 sale.'

��40 Copyright Act, 1911.

§2(2). exposure, offering for sale or hire, distribution, exhibition, or importation took place.

Knowledge of Wliercas sect. 2 {!', ^Icals Avitli those acts which are Sseiitfal™*^^ direct infringements oi' the monopoly conferred by sect. 1, sect. 2 (2) specifies those acts which, although not a direct infringement of the monopoly, yet follow from and aggravate the consequences of such a trespass. 'The first class of acts are (subject to the provisions of sect. 7) actionable whether committed with or without knowledge of the wrong. The second class of acts are not actionable at all unless committed with knowledge. Sale, &c. In each case the act complained of must be j)roved to

abroad. j^g^^^ l3,.;gj^ Completed within the territorial limits of the

Act(z). Offers for Where a dealer did not stock a certain picture, nor

include it in his price list, but was invited to quote a price, and accordingly did so, and expressed his willing- ness to negotiate a sale, it Avas held that he had not offered the jsicture for sale within the meaning of the Fine Arts Act, 1862 («). Proceedings Beside the provisions in sect. 2, which cover all in-

under sections f ringements, the Act contains certain other provisions do^noAtquire which relate to " copies " and " infringing copies." These proof of are, sect. 14 (1 ', which relates to copies of any work made

knowledge. out of the United Kingdom, and prohibits theii- impor- tation into the United Kingdom if the j^rescribed notice has been given to the Customs; and sect. 7, which pro- vides that all infringing copies of any w^ork, or of any substantial part thereof, shall be deemed to be the property of the owner of the coijyright, and that damages may be recovered in respect of the conversion thereof. Infringing cojDy means any copy including any colourabk; imitation made or imported in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The Act contains no defini- tion of " copy " : but if it is given a liberal interpretation, sect. 7 ought to prove most valuable in cases wdiore it would be otherwise difficult to recover damages, owing to the absence of proof of knowledge.

��(s) Bndische AnUin v. Hickson, [1905] 2 Ch. 495 ; Saccharin Corporation V. Reitmayer, [1900] 2 Ch. 659.

(a) Wolf \. Wood (1903), Cop. Cas. 1901-4, p. 69; The Times, October 31.

�� �