conclu tory copyright commences; while in paintings, drawings, § 198. and photographs there is no common law copyright; there General is a statutory copyright commencing on their making, but sions. requiring their registration before it can be enforced. It is with great diffidence submitted that the former is the more correct view of the law, as best agreeing with the principles of unpublished property, which undoubtedly applied, prior to the Act of 1862, to paintings, drawings, and photographs until their publication (s). SECTION II. English Law as to Engravings and Prints. § 199. Statutes.-§ 200. Subject-matter of right.-§ 201. Nature of The statutes at present regulating copyright in engravings and similar works of art are— 8 Geo. II. c. 13 (1735). 7 Geo. III. c. 38 (1766). 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 59 (1836), and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12, s. 14 (1852). A "print" is defined as being "any historical print or prints, or any other print or prints of any portrait, conversation, landscape or architecture [map, chart or plan], or any other print or prints whatsoever" (t). It includes (s) Questions of a similar nature came under discussion in the American cases of Oertel v. Wood, 40 How. Pr. N.Y. 10; and Oertel v. Jacoby, 44 How. Pr. N.Y. 179, cited by Drone, p. 287, note, in which contradictory decisions were given. (t) 7 Geo. III. c. 38, s. 1. § 199. Statutes. $ 200. Subject right. matter of § 200. Subject matter of right. § 201. "prints taken by lithography, or any other mechanical process by which prints or impressions of drawings or designs are capable of being multiplied indefinitely (u). It was decided in the case of Stannard v. Lee (x) by the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of Bacon, V.C. (y), that maps being defined as "books" in the Act of 1842 (z), are no longer to be treated as works of art, but as literary works, and must therefore be registered under the Act of 1842. Bacon, V.C., expressed subsequently in Stannard v. Harrison (a) his dissent from that decision. There is probably no copyright in obscene, blasphemous, seditious or libellous prints. (Fores v. Johnes (b).) Any person has the sole right or liberty of multiNature of plying, by any mechanical or other process, copies of any print, which he has the right. (I.) Invented or designed, graved, etched or worked in mezzotinto or chiaro-oscuro. (II.) Or from his own work, design or invention has caused or procured to be designed, &c. (III.) Or which he has engraved or caused to be engraved, &c., from any picture, drawing, model or sculpture, whether ancient or modern (c). Any process by which pictures or engravings may be imitated or copied may come within the express words the legislature have used (d). Thus the words include (u) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12, s. 14. (x) 24 L. T. N. S. 459. (y) 23 L. T. N. S. 306. (z) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 2. (a) 24 L. T. N. S. 570. (b) 4 Esp. 97. (c) 8 Geo. II. c. 13, s. 1; 7 Geo. III. c. 38, ss. 1, 2; Stephen's Digest, § 22; C. C. Rep. p. 67. (d) Kelly, C.B., in Graves v. Ashford, L. R. 2 C. P. 410, 421. the right of producing reduced photographic copies of an engraving (e). Where it was proved that the plaintiff gave an engraver a rough sketch of a map, with directions as to its size and contents, and furnished him with information to be recorded on it from time to time, he was held entitled to the copyright in the engraving, as being one who from his own invention had caused it to be designed (ƒ). The right is a separable one; that is to say, the right of producing engravings "of one size" can be assigned, the right of producing all other sizes of prints remaining in the original proprietor (g). § 201. Nature of the right. The duration of the right is for twenty-eight years Duration from the day of first publication of the print (h). The Investitive Fact of copyright in engravings is publication of such a work as specified above. To be the subject of copyright the print must be engraved, etched, drawn or designed in Great Britain. Mere publication in Great Britain will not suffice (i). There is no limitation as to the nationality of the engraver or designer. No formalities as to registration are required. The day of first publication, with the name of the proprietor, must be truly engraved on each plate and printed on each print (k). Both the date and the name of the proprietor must appear on the plate and print, but it is sufficient if the (e) Gambart v. Ball, 14 C. B. N. S. 306. (f) Stannard v. Harrison, 24 L. T. N. S. 570. (g) Lucas v. Cooke, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 872. (h) 7 Geo. III. c. 38, s. 6. (i) 17 Geo. III. c. 57, s. 1; Page v. Townsend, 5 Simons, 395. of right. § 202. Investitive facts. § 202. proprietor be named; he need not also be described as Investitive ❝6 proprietor." facts. § 203. Transvestitive facts. § 204. Divestitive facts. $ 205. Infringe ments of Thus, "Newton del. 1st May 1826, Gladwin sculp.," was held a compliance with the requirements of the Act (1); as was also, "London, published by Henry Graves & Company, May 1st 1861, Printsellers to the Queen, 6 Pall Mall" (m). If the engravings are included as illustrations in a book, the book must be registered under the Act of 1842 (n), and the requirements as to name of proprietor and date of publication need not be complied with (0). So also maps, charts and plans must be registered, and need not comply with the formalities of the Engraving Acts (p). Transvestitive Facts of Copyright. A licence to reproduce an engraving, to bind the proprietor, must be in writing, and signed by the proprietor, in the presence of and attested by two or more credible witnesses (q). Divestitive Facts of Copyright: 1. Waiver. 2. Expiration of the statutory term. Infringements of Right. The question to be decided is whether the defendant's copyright. print is substantially a copy of the plaintiff's, and published without the plaintiff's consent (r); a copy has (1) Newton v. Cowie, 4 Bing. 234. (m) Graves v. Ashford, L. R. 2 C. P. 410. (n) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 42. (0) Bogue v. Houlston, 5 De G. & S. 267; Maple v. Jun. Army and Navy Stores, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 369. (p) Stannard v. Lee, 24 L. T. N. S. 459, C.A. (7) 17 Geo. III. c. 57. (r) Moore v. Clarke, 9 M. & W. 692. § 205. ments of been also defined as "that which comes so near the original as to give to every person seeing it the idea Infringecreated by the original" (s). If the making of such a copyright. copy without licence is proved, it is immaterial whether the seller or maker knew that his print was pirated or not (t). In the above statement these limitations must however be made. The object of the Acts is twofold: (1.) The protection of the reputation of the engraver. (2.) His protection against any invasion of his commercial property in the print. The work complained of as an infringement must therefore be a copy, either exact or colourable, of the plaintiff's engraving, or of that part of the plaintiff's engraving which constitutes the real merit and labour of the engraver (u). It is not therefore a piracy of an engraving to make another engraving from the original picture, though it may be a piracy of the picture (x). Similarly it has been held that a Berlin wool pattern made from an engraving is not a violation of copyright in the engraving (y). The exhibition of a larger coloured diorama made from a print does not infringe the copyright in the print (z). In Dicks v. Brooks in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Baggallay expressed a doubt whether or not a chromo-lithograph was an infringement of a print; and Lord Justice Bramwell said: "I do not say that if this (s) West v. Francis, 5 B. & Ald. 737. (t) West v. Francis (v.s.); Gambart v. Sumner, 5 H. & N. 5. (x) De Berenger v. Wheeble, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 548. (y) Dicks v. Brooks, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 22. (z) Martin v. Wright, 6 Simons, 297. |