Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/97

 Civil Remedies. 85

for theii" full value, and the cause of action in respect § 7. of each copy arises at the date of conversion (?).

In so far as the defendant is in possession of the copies Trover, when action is brought, the action is an action of trover, and the cause of action arises M'hen demand is made for delivery up (m). Such demand should always, therefore, be made before the writ is issued.

If, as is submitted, an action under this section is not Question an action in respect of infringement of copyright, it ?^®*'^^^ follows that the three years limitation does not apply, limitation In so far as the action is one of conversion, an action of applies, damages can be brought in respect of all copies disposed of within the period of six years before the issue of the wa-it. In so far as the action is one of trover, the action can be brought at any time within six years after the plaintiff' has demanded that the copies shall be delivered up to him.

It also follows that sect. 6 of the Act does not aj^ply Question to an action brought under this section, and therefore the ^^^^^^J. plaintiff must prove nis title irrespective of the statutory proof of presumption afforded by the name of author, proprietor title applies, or publisher on the work. Apart, however, from such presumption, it w^ould probably not be necessary in every case to prove affirmatively that the reputed author of a book did in fact write it. In a case of a dramatic pieco which was not registered, and therefore as to which there was no presumption of title, it was held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie title to the performing right by producing a written assignment from a person purport- ing to be the author, and proving that he had repeatedly asserted his right against others (w).

Existing law. — Under sect. 23 of the Copyright Act, 1842, infringing copies are deemed to be the property of the proprietor of the copyright, and he can sue to recover the same or for damages for conversion. The section applies not only to reprints, but to cases where part only of the copyright work has been taken (o). A demand in writing is a condition precedent to the right of action

��{I) HoUlns V. Fowh-r (1S75), L. R. 7H. L. 757.

{m) Miller v. Bell, [1891] 1 Q. B. 468.

(«) Hardacre v. Armstrong (1) (1904), Cop. Cas. 1905-10; The Times, October 27.

(o) Boosey v. Whiyht (No. 2) (1899), 81 L. T. 265 ; Rooney v. Kelly (1861), 14 ir. C. L. E. 158, 171.

�� �