theatre are not prevented by any law of good manners or any legal impediment from expressing their opinions either by hissing or applauding; for being allowed to enter, this criticism is impliedly permitted to all without exception and disturbs nobody. Nevertheless any one who goes to an excess in hissing or applauding, can at all times be removed after request; and in case of dispute the respective rights and wrongs must be adjusted on the fundamental basis, that the proprietor and occupier of the house is entire master of the possession, and can even without reason exclude any person, subject only to an action for breach of contract, if there was a contract. 3 Copyright in engravings.—Published engravings were found by the courts to be with difficulty protected according to the understood principles of law of the time. The case of Hogarth's works and the expense and vexation incident to the defence of his property against piratical imitations,1 led to a protecting statute in 1735.2 The act was passed to confer a copyright on the artist in Great Britain analogous to copyright in books; and the act was extended to Ireland in 1836. It was designed to protect those (as it described them) "who by their own genius, industry, pains, and expense had invented or designed, engraved, or etched, or worked in mezzotinto or chiaroscuro sets of historical or other prints, or had engraved the pictures, drawings, or sculptures of others." 5 An amending act passed in 1777, and included maps and charts, and plans, and the same protection has been added to lithographs and like products. And the owner's name and the date of engraving were to be put on each plate. The certainly a right to express by applauses or hisses their sensations at the moment; and nobody has ever hindered, or would ever question, the exercise of that right. But if any body of men were to go to the theatre with the settled intention of hissing an actor or even of damning a piece, there can be no doubt that such a deliberate and preconcerted scheme would amount to a conspiracy, and that the persons concerned in it might be brought to punishment. And if people endeavour to effect an object by tumult and disorder, they are guilty of a riot.”—Mansfield, C. J.. Clifford v Brandon, 2 Camp. 370. 1 Nichols' Biog. Anecd. Hogarth. Will. IV. c. 59. 5 17 Geo. III. c. 57. 2 8 Geo. II. c. 13. 7 36&7 4 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 7 Geo. III. c. 38. c. 13. statute of 1777 was general in its terms, and prohibited copying of prints in any manner whatever; and hence was held to include the copying by means of photographs.1 And the size or minute accuracy of the copy, is altogether immaterial. And to make the matter still more clear the protection of the Engravings' Acts has been extended so as to prohibit the multiplication of copies by lithography or any other mechanical process. But the engraving of a picture, drawing, or photograph has now become an infringement of the copyright in those originals. And a person borrowing photographs for a particular purpose could not use those photographs for a different purpose, such as engraving and publishing them.5 The act protected plates which were joined with letterpress as much as if they were published separately; and in some cases they may be deemed to be part of the letterpress, and subject to the copyright of such letterpress, thereby rendering the essentials as to date, &c., unnecessary. The owner of the copyright is entitled under these acts to maintain an action against persons, who piratically publish or sell copies, without having his consent signed by his own hand in presence of two witnesses. And from this enactment it was held, that an assignment must be in writing, and signed by the assignor in presence of two witnesses. And he may recover penalties and forfeited copies either by action in an ordinary court, or in a summary proceeding before two justices in England. Registration of the copyright under this class of acts was required, whether the engraving was part of a book or published separately.10 And the condition as to the name of owner and the exact date being on the plate has been construed to be essential in order to maintain an action for damages, or recover penalties against a person making pirated copies. And the 9 8 1 Gambart v Ball, 14 C. B., N. S. 306; Graves v Ashford, L. R., 2 C. P. 421. 2 Moore v Clarke, 9 M. & W. 692. 3 15 Vic. c. 12, § 14. 4 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68. 5 Mayall v Higbey, 1 H. & C. 148. 6 Bogue v Houlston, 5 De G. and Sm. 275. 7 17 Geo. III., c. 57; 5 & 6 Vic. 99, § 2. 8 See analogous reasoning, ante p. 279, as to mode of assigning copyright of books. 9 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68, § 8. By the first act, 8 Geo. II., c. 13, the proprietor was bound to damask or destroy the forfeited copies; now he can do what he pleases with these. 10 Stannard v Lee, L. R., 6 Ch. 348. name of the firm is sufficient without the names of the partners.1 It was not necessary that the person selling or printing, should do so with actual knowledge, that the subject was engraved piratically; for the statute bears this construction, and in that respect imitates the Excise statutes. which make knowledge of the seller immaterial.2 The term for which this copyright was granted was first fourteen and then twenty-eight years.3 5 4 Copyright in paintings.-Previous to the year 1862, the courts of law assumed and decided, that if a painting were copied against the consent of the artist or owner, there was no remedy; and indeed Abbott, C. J., went the length of saying, that it would destroy all competition in the art if anything like copyright were recognised in paintings. The legislature swept away these misconceptions by enacting, that there shall be such copyright in the authors of original paintings, drawings, and photographs, and that the exclusive right of copying engravings or multiplying copies of such works not sold before 1862 should belong to the author and his assigns for the term of the natural life of such author and seven years after his death. But when a painting, drawing, or photograph is sold or executed for another for a valuable consideration, this copyright shall not belong to the artist unless he specially reserve it by a writing signed by the customer at or before the order. Nor shall the copyright or negative of photograph belong to the customer, unless, at or before the order, the artist by writing signed by him shall have given such copyright. If there is no copyright in any such work, then any person may copy or use it; and even if there is a copyright in the representation of a scene or object, another is not precluded from representing the same scene or object. This right of multiplying copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs is personal property, and the mode of assigning it is somewhat differently 1 Rock v Lazarus, L. R., 15 Eq. 104 The word del. after the name sufficiently complies with the statute as indicating the name of the proprietor, and the publisher's name is unnecessary.-Graves v Ashford, 4 R., 2 C. P. 421. 38 Geo. 27 Geo. III., c. 57; Gambart v Sumner, 5 H. & N. 5. II., c. 13; 7 Geo. III., c. 38. 4 De Berenger v Wheble, 2 Stark, 548. 5 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68. 6 Ibid., § 1. 7 Ibid., § 2. 3 described from that relating to books. It is assignable only in writing signed by the proprietor or his agent appointed for that purpose in writing. And hence greater strictness is required in proof of this assignment than the assignment as to books. And a licence to use or copy such works requires also to be in writing signed in the same way. Those who knowingly make copies or colourable imitations of these copyright paintings, or multiply or sell the same without the proprietor's consent, commit an offence and forfeit to the proprietor 10l., besides forfeiture of all the pirated copies. The statute besides imposing a penalty for the piracy or sale of pirated copies of paintings, drawings, and photographs, singled out several specific modes of infringement, and also subjected the infringer to a forfeiture to the proprietor of 10., or double value, and forfeiture of all unsold copies. These modes were fraudulently signing or affixing any name or initials, or knowingly selling copies so marked, or fraudulently selling them as genuine works of the author.5 One condition, however, is annexed, namely, that the names or initials fraudulently made, are those of authors living, or dead within twenty years. The photograph or any other copy of a painting or drawing, made directly or indirectly, being an infringement of copyright, the sale of every copy in violation of the act is a separate offence, and a separate penalty is recoverable for each. To sign or affix fraudulently a mark indicating the painter's name is an offence of cheating at common law irrespective of any statute. And it is now a misdemeanour to fraudulently affix these artist's marks.9 8 The remedies given by the Act cannot be enforced until the name and place of abode of the owner and date of the assignment, if any, and names of parties are entered in the register at Stationers' Hall.10 And the first assignment need not be entered in the register. A short detailed description of the work must also be included in the register sufficient to enable a person having the picture 87. 11 1 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68, § 3. 2 Strahan v Graham, 16 L. T., N. S. 6 Ibid. 27 L. J, M. C. 54. 11 Re Graves, L. R., 4 Q. B. 772. 5 Ibid. § 7. 8 R. v Closs, 10 Ibid. §§ 4, 5. before him to identify or ear-mark it, and judge if it is registered. And the register may be corrected at the instance of a person really aggrieved. Those who violate the copyright incur penalties and forfeitures which may be enforced by action and suit, or in a summary way. 3 The summary remedy which may be prosecuted before justices is an alternative remedy specially suited to cases, which are often of so small importance, that promptitude is the chief consideration. The justices have power to declare the penalty as well as the forfeiture.4 The penalty so incurred is not in the nature of a debt which may be discharged by a bankrupt's certificate, but in the nature of a criminal punishment. A concurrent remedy is also allowed of injunction, if it seem just to the court, that the further publication of copies be stopped. And in case of imported pirated copies, these may be seized by a Customs House officer and detained to abide the result of proceedings. 5 Copyright in sculptures.—A species of copyright in original sculptures of men, animals, or combined subjects, was conferred in 1798, which gave the maker a sole right and property therein for fourteen years from the first publication, and if at the end of such term the maker was alive and had not parted with his right, then for fourteen years more, provided he had put his name and date. thereon before publication.8 When the Act of 1814 assigned a definite term of copyright in sculpture, it also expressly enabled the owner of the copyright to sue for damages those who infringed it. When the sculpture has been registered under the Designs Act, and each copy marked "registered," then a penalty is also incurred of 5l. to 301., which the proprietor may recover from the defendant, and this sum may be recovered either by action of debt or by summary proceeding before justices of the peace. 10 The right to copyright in sculpture must be assigned by deed signed by the proprietor in presence of 1 Exp. Beal, L. R., 3 Q. B. 387. 724. 3 Ibid. §§ 8, 9. 2 Re Graves, L. R., 4 Q. B. 4 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68, § 8. 5 Exp. Graves, L. R., 3 Ch. Ap. 642. 6 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68, § 9; Mayall Higbey, 1 H. & C. 148. 7 25 & 26 Vic. c. 68, § 10. 8 38 Geo. III., c. 71, repealed by 54 Geo. III., c. 56. 9 54 Geo. III., c. 56, § 3. 10 13 & 14 Vic. c. 104, § 7; 5 & 6 Vic. c. 100, § 8. |