Protection was claimed in Hollinrake v. Truswell[155] for a cardboard pattern sleeve called the "Cosmopolitan Sleeve Chart." It consisted of a piece of cardboard cut to suitable shape and size and marked with figures and directions, such as "measure round the thick part of the arm," and it was intended to be used for the purpose of measuring and cutting out sleeves. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of Wright, J., and dismissed the action. Lord Herschell said:

"The object of the Copyright Act was to prevent any one publishing a copy of the particular form of expression in which an author conveyed ideas or information to the world. These may be retained by any one, although the book, map, or chart which embodied them has passed out of his possession. If he were to commit to memory the contents of the book or the information disclosed by the map or chart, he would be as much in possession of the author's ideas or information as if the book, map, or chart were physically in his hands. But this is not the case with the words or figures upon the sleeve chart. They are intended to be used, and can only be used in connection with that upon which they are inscribed.... I think it clear, therefore, that what the plaintiff has sought to protect under the Act for the protection of literary productions is not a literary production, but an apparatus for the use of which certain words and figures must necessarily be inscribed upon it."[156]

In a Canadian case a railway ticket containing the names of stations on the line and dates so arranged that when punched it indicated where the holder was entitled to travel, was refused [33] protection. It was said that without the application of the conductor's punch, the ticket was senseless and meaningless.[157]

In Boosey v. Whight[158] it was held that a sheet of music was not infringed by a perforated scroll for use in a mechanical instrument; and further, that the directions in the printed music, e. g. pp., crescendo, were not the subject of copyright apart from the printed sheet, and therefore might be taken and used in conjunction with the perforated scroll. It seems to follow that neither the perforated scroll nor the directions thereon would constitute a "book" within the meaning of the Act.

Chilton's Special Guide published weekly sporting information. Among other matter it contained their sporting prophet's "tips" for the big races in the ensuing week. This was contained in a list, thus:

The Progress Printing and Publishing Company published daily at the various race meetings racing sheets with the day's "tips" from various sporting papers, thus:

The Court of Appeal held[159] that there could be no copyright in the individual selections for each day, but suggested that there might be copyright in the list of selections for the week, and that it would be an infringement to take it bodily. Lindley, L. J., in giving judgment, said:

"Unless you find the one horse selection and that block which is headed by the title 'One Horse Selections' in the shape in which the plaintiff [34] has published it, I doubt whether you can bring it within literary composition at all. Perhaps the whole of that might be called literary composition; but there is no literary composition in the word 'Priestholm.'"[160]

Engravings, prints, designs, or other reproductions of artistic matter will be protected under the law of literary copyright either when published in the form of a volume or when published in connexion and together with letterpress. By this means compliance with the stringent requirements of the Acts relating to artistic copyright is avoided. The first case where an illustration was held to be part of a book, and therefore protected under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, was Bogue v. Houlston.[161]. The plaintiff published some old non-copyright tales, including "Reynard the Fox," and illustrated them with original drawings of animals. These woodcuts were pirated by the defendants, and used as illustrations in their serial publication, "The Story-Book for Young People, by Aunt Mary." The plaintiff did not claim copyright in any letterpress.[162] The defendants maintained that the woodcuts not having been published so as to comply with the provisions of the Engravings Acts, could not be protected from piracy. It was held, however, that they were part of a book. Parker, V. C., in giving judgment, quoted the definition of a book from the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, and continued:

"This definition does not extend to prints or designs separately published, but only to the prints and designs forming part of a book, and the book is not less a book because it contains prints or designs or other illustrations of the letterpress. This Act vested in the proprietor of such book duly registered the right to sue in respect of any invasion or infringement of the copyright of his book. It appears to me that a book must include every part of the book; it must include every print, design, or engraving which forms part of the book as well as the letterpress therein which is another part of it."[163]

In Maple & Co. v. Junior Army and Navy Stores,[164] the engravings in an illustrated catalogue, containing almost no letterpress, were protected under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. "There may [35] be such things," said Jessel, M. R., "as picture-books for those who cannot read letterpress."[165] In Hildesheimer & Faulkner v. Dunn & Co.,[166] protection was claimed for a Christmas card cut out and painted in the form of a lady's hand. It opened out book-wise, and inside were delineated the lines of life according to the rules of palmistry, and on one side there was an original verse. This work was registered both under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 as a book and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68 as a painting. Kekewich, J., in granting an injunction against a piracy, said he would not decide whether the work was a picture or a book, but as it was well registered under both Acts, an action lay. In Comyns v. Hyde,[167] a coloured plate representing an Orpington cock was issued with the weekly number of a serial publication called The Feathered World. The plate was not in any way physically connected with the rest of the publication, but it was illustrative of an article in the journal, and a copy was given to every purchaser. Stirling, J., held that it must be protected as part of the book. If a plate or picture has been previously published in separate form, without complying with the provisions of the Engravings Acts, it will not subsequently receive protection by reason of its incorporation into a volume.[168] In Strong v. Worskett[169] a magazine was before publication advertised by means of illustrated posters. The same illustration as appeared on the posters was afterwards reproduced in the magazine. It was held that it could not be protected as part of the magazine. The result of these decisions appears to be that an artistic work will be protected under the Literary Copyright Act, 1842, if it is bound up with other artistic works in the form of a volume, or if it is published in connexion with letterpress. The picture on a Christmas card on which there are also verses, would, it is submitted, be protected as a book, and, it would seem, whether or not the verses were copyright, and whether or not (but this is more doubtful) the picture was in any way illustrative of the verses. It is also submitted that an engraving published in a magazine without [36] any relation to the letterpress, except that of physical connexion, would be protected as part of the book; but an engraving or print which had neither any relation to the letterpress nor physical connexion would probably not be protected even although issued gratis with every copy of the magazine.

It need hardly be said that anonymous works are entitled to copyright. The publication of a work without the author's name is not to be construed as an abandonment of the literary property.[170]

Maps, charts, and plans are expressly included in the definition of a "book." If incorporated in a volume they will be protected with the rest of the volume under its general title; if published separately they will be protected as "books" by themselves. The meaning of "maps," &c., will be literally construed; but it must be something which in itself conveys information to the person studying it. Davey, L. J., in speaking of maps, said[171]:—

"I agree ... that a 'map' is not confined to what is popularly known as a map—viz. a geographical map; and that a 'chart' is not confined to what is popularly called a chart—viz. a map of a portion of the seas showing the rocks, soundings, and such-like information for the use of navigators.... There may, no doubt, be an anatomical and physiological plan showing the structure and distribution of the muscles and bones of the human arm, or any other part of the human frame, which would be protected by the Copyright Act."

The exclusive right of making copies of original music is expressly protected by the Act of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 under the definition of a book. Under the statute of Anne it was protected by case law, "book" being held to include a volume or sheet of music.[172]

Section II.—Publication.

Publication divests the author or proprietor of an unpublished work of his common law rights therein. After [37] publication his right to protection depends solely upon the statute. Publication must be looked at from two points of view—divestitive, i. e. as taking away the author's common law right; and investitive, i. e. as clothing him with the statutory right.

Divestitive Publication.—If a literary work is communicated to the public without restriction, the common law right of the author terminates. This may be done orally or by written or printed manuscript. Either kind of communication, however, may be so limited as not to amount to a publication. A drama or musical work is not published by being publicly performed in a theatre or concert room,[173] since the communication is limited to those who have paid their price for admission, and they are admitted under an implied contract that they will not make any use of what they hear except for their own entertainment and instruction. The same applies to lectures delivered at a University[174] or by a private lecturer.[175] The question as to when a public speaker or preacher publishes the speech or sermon which he delivers is one of extreme difficulty, and depends on the relation of the speaker to his audience.[176] If a literary composition is orally communicated in a place to which all have admission as of right, or to which all are admitted without distinction, and where there are no circumstances from which a contractual relationship between the speaker and his audience can be inferred, the matter so communicated will be abandoned to the public to make what use of it they please. Similarly communication by means of manuscript or print may be limited or unlimited. Private distribution of copies of a book is not publication, because the essence of publication is that the matter must be available to all comers and not only to a class;[177] but the issue of a book to subscribers only would [38] be publication if the subscription list was open to the public at large, and even although the number of copies available was very small. In one case[178] the words of a song were held to be published by being printed on a music-hall programme and distributed in the streets as an advertisement. Exhibition in a public place without distribution of copies would undoubtedly be divestitive publication. Divestitive publication must be with the consent of the proprietor; an unlicensed publication would merely be an infringement of his rights.

Investitive Publication.—Publication vests the statutory right of copyright, but a publication which divests the common law right does not necessarily invest the statutory right. An investitive publication is of necessity also a divestitive publication, but not vice versâ. The principal distinction is that an investitive publication must be a publication of a book, while a divestitive publication is a publication of the literary composition which is or may be contained in a book. Thus the delivery of a lecture does not vest copyright, although under certain circumstances it may divest the common law right. The book itself must be given to the public, and not merely the contents, in order to secure copyright. It has been suggested that a book will not be published within the meaning of the Copyright Act unless it is also printed. There is certainly some colour for this suggestion. The Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 gives protection to all books which are "published" without any express restriction to printed books. It seems to be assumed, however, throughout the Act that a book when published must necessarily be in print. For instance, section 6 requires "That a printed copy ... shall be delivered at the British Museum." In section 11 again, where provision is made for registration, it is not contemplated that a book in which there is copyright could be in manuscript, although the section makes express provision for the registration of manuscript dramatic and musical pieces, in respect of performing right. There is no authority on this point. In White v. Geroch[179] it was said that publication of a musical piece in manuscript [39] vested the statutory copyright; but this was under the statute of Anne, which seems expressly to contemplate publication in manuscript which 5 & 6 Vict. certainly does not. In Boucicault v. Chatterton[180] James, L. J., says: "a book is published by being printed and issued to the public;" but this was said only in illustration of the point he was then making, viz. that publication does not necessarily mean the same thing in dealing with copyright as it does in dealing with performing right. On the whole, although the point is extremely doubtful, I am of opinion that printing is not required. Suppose an illuminated hand-made book, fifty copies put on the market, is that to be denied copyright? If it is, the result seems to be that it is unprotected from piracy, since the common law right terminates with unconditional publication. Another point on publication has been raised but not decided, viz.: Must there be a distribution of copies to the public, or will it be sufficient if one or more copies are made accessible to the public; for instance, by deposit of a copy at the British Museum or in other public libraries. Sir James Stephen, in his Digest appended to the "Report of the Copyright Commission, 1878," Art. 4, says: "publication ... means in reference to books, publication for sale;" and James, L. J., as cited above, suggests that there must be an "issuing to the public." On the other hand, the disjunctive use of the terms "published" and "offered for sale " in section 6 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 is rather in favour of the view that there can be investitive publication without "offering for sale." Analogy from other branches of the law is unreliable; the exhibition of a picture in a public gallery is publication of the picture,[181] but that is the only way in which a picture can be published. On the whole, I think that if the public have free and unrestricted access to a book there will be publication, even although they may not be able to procure copies for themselves. Something might depend on the rules of a library where the book was deposited.

There is a common practice among publishers to accept as proof of first publication a receipt given on the sale of a single [40] copy of the book. No doubt this is primâ facie proof of publication, but the sale of a single copy does not necessarily imply publication, and it would be open to any one disputing the date of the publication to say that the sale was collusive, and that the book was not at that time, as it must be in order to constitute publication, offered to the public. It would be sufficient publication for the publisher to place copies, or even one copy of the book, in his window for sale. The record in his books should be sufficient evidence of the date if it is disputed.

In a case[182] under the statute of Anne it was held that publication must be by or on behalf of the proprietor, or at least with the view of conferring copyright upon him. The publication in that case was made by an oral assignee to whom the author had purported to convey the exclusive right of publication in the United Kingdom. It was held that the assignee had no copyright because there was no written assignment, and that the author did not acquire copyright because the publication was not on his behalf. The result seems to be that the copyright was lost. If the principle is sound, which is extremely doubtful, it might be applied to the case of first publication by a licensee, unless it could be implied from the contract between the licensor and licensee that the licensee was not acting entirely on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his licensor to secure copyright.

First Publication within the British Dominions.—Under the Act of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, it was held essential that first publication should be within the United Kingdom;[183] but since the International Act of 1886[184] first publication anywhere within the British dominions will equally secure copyright. If a book is published simultaneously within and without the dominions it is sufficient.[185] Publication a day later than publication abroad would probably lose the copyright; but if on the same day, even although an hour or two later, it would be deemed simultaneous. If a serial story in a periodical is [41] being published simultaneously, say here and in the United States, some parts may have lost their copyright by too hasty publication in America, but this would not deprive the whole serial of copyright if the other parts were "first published" within the British dominions.[186] The date on the title-page of an American book has been held not to be conclusive evidence of the time of publication in the United States.[187] It is quite immaterial where the manuscript is written;[188] and probably equally immaterial where the book is printed. It has been suggested, however, that under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, printing within the United Kingdom was necessary, and that now since the "International Copyright Act, 1886," printing within the British dominions is a condition precedent to protection. I do not think the suggestion is of any weight. It is founded on two obiter dicta—one of Lord St. Leonards in Jefferys v. Boosey,[189] and the other of Bayley, J., in Clementi v. Walker.[190]

If a book is first published outside the British dominions there will be no copyright[191] in it except under the International Statutes.[192] Section 19 of 7 & 8 Vict. has been held to apply to publication in all foreign countries, and not only to those with which an international convention is in existence;[193] and it has been further held to apply to the works of a British subject as well as to those of a foreigner.[194]

If a dramatic or musical work is first performed abroad before publication as a book, although that may destroy the performing right within the British dominions, it probably will not affect the author's right to acquire copyright by first publication here in "book" form. It may be said that "first published" in 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19, has been held to include "first performed."[195] That decision, [42] however, dealt only with a question of performing right. In Boosey v. Davidson[196] there was first performance abroad, and it was held that copyright was obtained here by first publication; but there was no argument on section 19.

Section III.—Author's Nationality.

It must still be considered doubtful whether or not the author of a book must be a British subject, or at least resident within the British dominions at the time of publication. This point is the subject of a considerable body of case law under the statute of Anne; but there has been no definite and authoritative decision under the statute of Victoria. The question was first seriously argued in the case of D'Almaine v. Boosey,[197] when it was decided in the Court of Exchequer that the work of a foreigner would be entitled to protection if first published in England by an English assignee. The next case was Bentley v. Foster,[198] before Shadwell, V. C., who decided that the foreigner himself could acquire a copyright by first publication in this country. After that there is a series of confused and conflicting cases,[199] terminating with the decision of Jefferys v. Boosey[200] in the House of Lords. The plaintiff in that case was the English assignee of the unpublished work of a non-resident foreigner. The first publication was in England. The judges were consulted, and of these six were in favour of the plaintiff's right and four against it. The House of Lords, however, were unanimous against the plaintiff's right. They decided that the work of a non-resident foreigner could not acquire copyright in this country.

Lord Cranworth, L. C., said:

"The statute (8 Anne) must be construed as referring to British authors only. Primâ facie the legislature of this country must be taken [43] to make laws for its own subjects exclusively, and where, as in the statute now under consideration, an exclusive privilege is given to a particular class at the expense of the rest of her Majesty's subjects, the object of giving that privilege must be taken to have been a national object and the privileged class to be confined to a portion of that community for the general advantage of which the enactment is made. When I say that the legislature must primâ facie be taken to legislate only for its own subjects, I must be taken to include under the word 'subjects' all persons who are within the Queen's dominions, and who thus owe to her a temporary allegiance. I do not doubt but that a foreigner resident here, and composing and publishing a book here, is an author within the meaning of the statute: he is within its words and spirit. I go further: I think that if a foreigner having composed but not having published a work abroad were to come to this country, and the week or day after his arrival were to print and publish it here, he would be within the protection of the statute."

Jefferys v. Boosey[201] then definitely decided that under the statute of Anne a foreigner, unless at the time of publication he was resident within the jurisdiction of the crown, could not be an author within the meaning of the Act, and therefore neither he nor his assigns before or after publication could acquire copyright. It would seem to follow that the construction of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 would lead to a similar decision. This, however, has been doubted in the House of Lords in the case of Routledge v. Low.[202] The actual decision in that case went no further than holding that a foreign author who was resident for a few days in Canada expressly for the purpose of acquiring copyright while her book was published in London was an author within the Act, a proposition which had not been disputed in Jefferys v. Boosey.[203] Their Lordships, however, discussed the wider issue whether even temporary residence was necessary. Lord Cairns, L. C., and Lord Westbury were of opinion that it was not. Lord Cairns, after pointing out that Jefferys v. Boosey[204] was a decision under the Act of Anne, said:

"It was impossible not to see that the ratio decidendi in that case proceeded mainly, if not exclusively, on the wording of the preamble of the statute of Anne, and on a consideration of the general character and [44] scope of the legislation of Great Britain at that period. The present statute had repealed that Act, and professed to aim at affording greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world. And accepting this decision of the House as to the construction of the statute of Anne, it is, I think, impossible not to see that the present statute would be incompatible with a policy so narrow as that expressed in the statute of Anne."[205]

Lords Cranworth and Chelmsford agreed that temporary residence within the dominions was sufficient to give a foreigner the right to acquire copyright as a British author, and therefore concurred in the judgment of the House. They, however, differed strongly from the view that a non-resident foreigner could be an author within the Act. Lord Cranworth said:

"I have no hesitation in concurring with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the decree below was right. I find it difficult to concur with him in the opinion that the present statute extends its protection to all foreigners wherever they may be resident without saying that the case of Jefferys v. Boosey[206] is not good law—a conclusion at which I should be very unwilling to come as to any case decided in this House, more especially as to one so elaborately considered as that of Jefferys v. Boosey.[207] That case, as my noble friend has pointed out, was decided not on the construction of the Act of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, but on the statute of Queen Anne; but I own I do not as at present advised see any difference between the two statutes so far as relates to the subject of the residence of foreign authors."

Routledge v. Low[208] is followed as to its actual decision in Low v. Ward;[209] but as to the rights of a non-resident foreign author the law remains, as left by Routledge v. Low,[210] truly in a most unsatisfactory state. It is difficult to escape from the conclusion, however willingly one would, that there is really no distinction between the application of the statute of Anne and that of Victoria, and that, therefore, a case arising on this point under the Act of Victoria is governed by Jefferys v. Boosey,[211] a decision which, if erroneous, was not so for want of deliberate research and consideration. The general opinion, [45] however, seems to be that Lords Cairns and Westbury were right and Lords Cranworth and Chelmsford wrong. This view is adopted by Stephen, J., in his digest.[212] Mr. Scrutton is of the same opinion, and cites the Naturalisation Act and the proviso that copyright is personal property.[213] Mr. Chamier does the same.[214] It is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the Naturalisation Act and the indisputable fact that a foreigner wherever resident can acquire a British copyright are entirely beside the mark, and do not in the least help one to decide whether the legislature is to be presumed to have applied the Act of 5 & 6 Vict. to the works of foreign authors. The decision that the work of a non-resident foreign author will not be protected is in no way contrary to the provision of the Naturalisation Act that an alien friend may acquire and hold personal property in the same way in all respects as a British subject. The logical conclusion from that provision is that an alien friend as well as a British subject may acquire British copyright wherever it exists; but it does not necessarily follow that British copyright exists in the work of a foreign author, and that either an alien friend or a British subject can acquire it. After the passing of the Chace Act (1891) in the United States, the law officers of the Crown in England were consulted by the American law officers, and they advised that an American author could acquire copyright in his work by simultaneous publication in this country and America, even although he was not at any time resident within the British dominions. Consequently on that advice the President of the United States proclaimed Great Britain as one of the countries which gave by their law reciprocal rights to American authors; and English authors are thereby entitled to acquire copyright in the United States. It would certainly be most unsatisfactory if the law of England were now to be declared contrary to the advice then given by our law officers, but it cannot be said that this should influence our Courts if their decision on the point was called for. [46]

Section IV.—Immoral Works.

Profane,[215] indecent,[216] seditious,[217] and libellous[218] books will not be protected. Neither will those which are a fraud upon the public.[219] For instance, a book published as translated from the German of Sturm, which was entirely untrue and induced purchasers to buy it, was refused protection.[220] Quære whether a piratical book would be protected in so far as it was original. Probably it would.[221] If a book is not wholly mischievous, but only in part, it will probably be protected except as to that part;[222] and if a book is subsequently published purged of its immoral matter or fraudulent nature it would be protected.[223] If an action is brought in respect of a mischievous publication the practice of the Court is to dismiss the action without costs.[224] In one case[225] Mathew, J., would not take cognisance of immorality mero motu, and when it was not pleaded by the defendant he gave the plaintiff his remedy. Notwithstanding this, there can be no doubt that the Court may refuse to interfere even when both parties are willing to waive the question of immorality. The Court cannot be compelled to sit to take an account between public malefactors.

Section V.—Registration.

Before Action.—Before an owner of copyright sues for infringement his book must be registered at Stationers' Hall.[226] [47] The omission to register does not affect the copyright in a book, but it is a condition precedent to the right to sue in respect of the infringement thereof.[227] At one time it was thought that registration was only a condition precedent to an action for the particular remedies given by the statute, and that whether registration was effected or not the common law right of action for damages lay.[228] This, however, is not law. Registration is a condition precedent to any right of action for infringement of copyright. If an action is brought without proper registration, that action must fail; but a correct entry may then be made and a fresh action commenced.[229]

No registration is necessary to maintain an action for the infringement of performing rights in a book which is a dramatic or musical work.[230]

Registration need not be made before infringement: it may be effected at any time before the writ is issued.[231] In one case it was held a good registration when entry was made on the same day, but a few hours before the issue of the writ.[232] In Hole v. Bradbury,[233] Fry, J., held that registration after infringement did not entitle the plaintiff to delivery up of copies for his own use under the 23rd section of the Act of 1842, but that under its general jurisdiction the Court had power to order delivery up for destruction. In Isaacs v. Fiddemann,[234] Jessel, M. R., thought that even although infringement was before registration the plaintiff was entitled to have delivery up for his own benefit, and that the 23rd section applied to such a case. Which is the correct view it is difficult to say. The argument of Fry, J., in support of his view is elaborate and appears sound, whereas Jessel, M. R., seems to have gone more on the ground of convenience.

Registration must be effected after the publication of the [48] book.[235] In several cases an attempt has been made to secure a monopoly in a title by registration before the book was published or even written.[236] Such registration is entirely inoperative to secure a monopoly in the title or the right to sue in respect of the copyright in the book when published. Registration does not give the plaintiff any right (except perhaps as to delivery of copies) which he would not equally have had without registration.[237] All registration does is to perfect the right and give a title to sue on it.

It must be remembered that it is the book which is to be registered and not the copyright. It is common but erroneous to talk of "registering copyright." The distinction was pointed out in Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough.[238] The three several proprietors of three periodicals had employed and paid a contributor under section 18 on the terms that the matter contributed should belong to these three proprietors. The matter appeared in each of the three newspapers and each registered his own newspaper in his own name. It was argued that the registration was bad, since they should have been registered as joint proprietors, but the Court of Appeal held that the registration was good, since each had registered his "book," and section 19 was literally complied with.

A newspaper is a sheet of letterpress within the Act and must be registered.[239] In one case[240] Malins, V. C., protected a newspaper which was not registered, but that case has been expressly overruled[241] and is clearly unsound. No registration is necessary other than that required by the Act of 1842. In Cate v. Devon[242] it was contended that a newspaper would not be protected unless it had been registered under the Newspaper Libel Act, 1881. This contention was held erroneous, and registration under the Act of 1842 was alone required. Similarly [49] it is not a good defence to an action for infringement that the publisher's name and address is not printed on the first or last page of a book as required by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12.[243]

The Requisite Entry.—Registration is made in the Book of Registry which the Act enacts[244] shall be kept at the Hall of the Stationers' Company. The fee for registration is five shillings. The Book of Registry must at all convenient times be open to the inspection of any person on payment of one shilling for every entry searched for or inspected. This, however, does not entitle any one to make a copy of an entry; but any one may demand a certified copy of an entry from the keeper of the Registry on payment of five shillings.

The proprietor of the copyright must register in the Book of Registry:[245]