Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/81

 Rights. 69

rig-ht to produce such contribution at any future time § 5 (2).

as part of the encvclopfeclia. The object of the last three

lines of the proviso is to permit (1) the editor or other person who may be considered to be the author of the col- lection as a whole to assign to the proprietors all right, title and interest in the work which might otherwise vest in him as author; (2) a contributor to grant a perpetual licence for the reproduction of his contribution as part of the collection.

It seems reasonably clear that if a contributor were to grant an ex facie absolute assignment of his copyright in the contribution, then in so far as the proviso would prevent that assignment from operating as such beyond the period of twenty-five years after the contributor's death, it would nevertheless continue to operate as a licence to the proprietor of the collection to continue to reproduce the contribution as part of the collection.

It will be observed that the author may dispose of his Sale of reversionary interest by will, and immediately upon the reversion^y author's death his executors or legatees may sell such author's reversionary interest. death.

Existing law.— The divisibility of copyright has been the subject of some doubt [i). Probablj' it is divisible as to time or place, and, perhaps, as to the method of reproduction (A-). An assignment of copyright or performing right must be in writing (Z) ; in the case of a book, if the work has been previously registered in the name

��(«) Jefferijs v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C. 815 ; Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B. 427, 436 ; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D. 434, 435.

{h) Landeler and Brown v. Wolff (1908), Cop. Cas. 1905—10, p. 102 ; Taylor v. Neville (1878), 26 W. R. 299 ; Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T. (N. S.) 77 ; Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D. 872 ; Holt v. Woods (1896), 17 N. S. W. R. Eq. 36 ; Bobson, Ex parte (1892), 12 N. Z. L. R. 171 ; Howitt V. Hall (1862), 6 L. T. (N. S.) 348; Stveet v. Cater (1840), 11 Sim. 572 ; Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B. 456.

{I) Leyland v. Stewart (1876), 4 Ch. D. 419; Bower y. Walker (1814), 3 M. & S. 7; Davidson V. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B. 456; dementi v. Walker (1824), 2 B. & Cr. 861 ; Jeff'erys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C. 815, 906, 944; Kyle v.Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq. 611, 617; 18 D. 906; Cumberland V. Copeland (1862), 1 H. & C. 194 ; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B. 860 ; Cooper V. Stephens, [1895] 1 Ch. 567 ; Marshall v. Petty (1900). 17 T. L. R. 684 ; Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B. 427 ; Eaton v. Lake (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 378; Hardacre v. Armstrong (1905), 21 T. L. R. 189; Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, s. 3 ; Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B. 517 ; Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press, [1897] 2 Q. B. 1 ; Wood V. Boosey (1867), 7 B. & S. 897 ; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. R. 393.

�� �