§ 148. Newspapers. for piracy, they pleaded that the newspaper was not registered, and consequently that the plaintiff could not sue. Malins, V.C., held that a newspaper was not a "book" under Clause 2; was not mentioned in s. 19; did however come under s. 18, but did not require registration, and that its right, to protection rested either on s. 18, or on the "general rules of property," presumably the common law right. In support of his position he quoted the cases of Mayhew v. Maxwell (e) and Strahan v. Graham (d), in neither of which was there registration. But in both these cases the question was not as to general copyright, but of restraint from publication contrary to the terms of a special contract, and it was therefore held that registration was not necessary (e). A similar question recently came before Jessel, M.R., in Walter v. Howe (ƒ), where the Times, an unregistered newspaper, published an article, and the defendant reprinted it. The question of copyright in the particular article was the material point, but the Master of the Rolls also held that a newspaper, being a "sheet of letterpress," was a "book" under s. 2 of the Act, and also a "periodical work" under s. 19, and that therefore under s. 19 its non-registration prevented the plaintiff from suing. He refused to follow the case of Cox v. Land and Water Company (g), saying that it practically repealed the Act of Parliament. (c) 1 J. & H. 312. (d) 16 L. T. N.S. 87. With reference to Sweet v. Benning, 16 C. B. 459, the V.-C. says, "I suppose the Jurist was not registered at all;" whereas the first page of the report of the case states that the Jurist was registered before action brought. (f) L. R. 17 Ch. D. 708. (g) L. R. 9 Eq. 324. $149. In Stannard v. Lee (h) the Court of Appeal held, reversing the decision of Bacon, V.C., that maps were Maps. books under the Act of 1842, and not engravings under the Engravings Acts, and that they must therefore be registered. copyright. It is probable that the Crown (i) has still special § 150. copyright in perpetuity in the authorized version of Crown the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and possibly in Acts of Parliament. The origin of this has been dealt with elsewhere. For an intellectual work to be capable of protection § 151. as copyright it must be I. Innocent, that is 1. Not seditious or libellous (k) (the libel being against the State). 2. Not immoral (1); a work bearing on the love 3. Not blasphemous (m); thus Lord Eldon refused protection to Laurence's 'Lectures on Physiology,' as "hostile to revealed religion, and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul." The same Chancellor (n) refused protection to Lord Byron's 'Cain,' and in 1823 Sir J. Leach took a similar course with regard to 'Don Juan.' In the Scotch case of Hopps v. Long (1874) (o), a Unitarian discussion of the life of Jesus was considered copyright, as a decent discussion not endangering the public peace, safety, or morality. (h) L. R. 6 Ch. 346. (i) Baskett v. Univ. of Cambridge, 1 W. Blackstone, 105; Stationers' Coe v. Carnan, 2 W. Blackstone, 1002. (k) Hime v. Dale, 2 Camp. 27; Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Mer. 435. (m) Laurence v. Smith, 1 Jacob, 471. Qualities required in copyright work. work. § 151. If the law as to blasphemy is correctly laid down by Qualities the Lord Chief Justice in his summing-up in the required in copyright recent case of R. v. Foote and Ramsay, a fair, honest, and moderate discussion of the truth of Christianity or of religion, resulting in a denial of their authority, will not be "blasphemous," so as, among other consequences, to deprive it of copyright. If, on the other hand, the view advocated by Stephen, J., and by North, J., in the recent case at the Old Bailey, is correct, it would be blasphemous, and therefore not the subject of copyright. § 152. Literary value. With reference to these three heads, it has already been pointed out (p) that the present state of the law is unsatisfactory, in destroying a check on the free circulation of these works which might be valuable, namely, the author's interest in preventing unauthorized reproductions. 4. Not fraudulent, or professing to be what it is not with intent to deceive. Thus a work of devotion professing falsely to be translated from the work of a celebrated German writer (q), was not protected. II. The work must have literary value. This limitation. is not required in the case of unpublished MSS. The purpose of the Act is to protect "useful books," and very little "usefulness" or material value will suffice to obtain protection. But in the recent case of Cable v. Marks (r) in which an attempt was made to obtain copyright for a perforated card, with some verses on it, which, throwing the "Shadow of the Cross" on the wall, (p) Above, § 26; C. C. Rep. §§ 65-66. § 152. value. went by the name of the Christograph, Bacon, V.C., held it "not a literary production in any sense of the Literary word." Catalogues will be protected unless they are Catalogues. "merely a dry list of names." Where the catalogue infringed partook of the nature of a bibliography (s), the Court said "they could not protect a mere dry list. of names like a postal directory, court guide, etc., which must be substantially the same, by whatever numbers of persons issued, and however independently compiled"; and again, the work there protected was "not a mere dry list of books, but such a sketch of their history and contents as would be calculated to be of intrinsic value." In Cobbett v. Woodward (t), an injunction to restrain publication of an illustrated catalogue of furniture was refused as to the illustrations, but granted as to certain parts of the letterpress. In Grace v. Newman (u) however the piracy of a stonemason's illustrated catalogue was restrained, and this case was followed, Cobbett v. Woodward being disapproved, in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (x), a recent case before the Court of Appeal, where an illustrated catalogue of furniture was protected as to the illustrations, though it was held there was no copyright in the letterpress, which was a simple announcement of the sale of goods which everyone might sell and announce for sale. ments. As a general rule there is no copyright in Advertise- Advertisements or labels. In the American case of Coffeen v. Brunton (y), where the plaintiff's label on a medicine (8) Hotten v. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603. (t) L. R. 14 Eq. 407. (u) L. R. 19 Eq. 623. (x) 21 Ch. D. 369. See also Bogue v. Houlston, 5 De G. & Sm. 267. (y) 4 McLean, 516. § 152. value. ments. had been pirated, it was held that, not having complied Literary with the patent laws, he had not property in the Advertise- medicine; that he had no copyright in the label, as it was not a "book" within the provisions of the American statute; but that he had an equitable ground for protection if the defendant had represented his medicine to be the same as the plaintiff's to the injury of the plaintiff. In the American case of Drury v. Ewing (z) copyright was recognised in a large printed sheet of dressmaking patterns; but in the English case of Page v. Wisden (a) it was refused in a cricket scoring sheet where the only novelty introduced by the plaintiff appeared to be a line for recording the runs at the fall of each wicket. § 153. Titles of books. With respect to Titles, the recent case of Dicks v. Yates (b), in the Court of Appeal, must be taken as finally deciding that, except in very rare cases, there cannot be any copyright in the title of a book; and the remedy for its use, if any exists, will be that for common law fraud. In that case the title claimed was Splendid Misery'; the plaintiff's novel was published in Every Week; the defendant's, an entirely different novel, written by Miss Braddon, in the World. The defendant proved that a novel bearing a similar title had been published in the early part of the century. In refusing an injunction, Jessel, M.R., after commenting on the lack of originalty in the title, said, "I do not say that there could not be copyright in a title, as for instance in a whole page of title, or some thing of that kind requiring invention. I am of opinion (2) 1 Bond, 540. (a) 20 L. T. N. S. 435. (b) L. R. 18 Ch. D. 76, 89. |