and to the same benefits, remedies, and privileges in respect of such work, as he would have been entitled to under the existing Imperial Act, if the work had been first published in the United Kingdom.*

59. With regard to publication in foreign states the law now is that, except under treaty, no copyright can be obtained if a book has been published in any foreign country before being published in the United Kingdom, but it is doubtful whether contemporaneous publication in this and a foreign country would prevent the acquisition of copyright here.

60. It is a grave question whether it is desirable that the condition requiring first publication in this country should continue, and whether the reason advanced for this condition, namely, that it is advantageous to this country that works should be first published here, outweighs the hardship that may be inflicted upon British authors by preventing them from availing themselves of arrangements which they might otherwise make with foreign or colonial publishers.

61. We have come to the conclusion that a British author, who publishes a work out of the British dominions, should not be prevented thereby from obtaining copyright within them by a subsequent publication therein. Yet we think that such re-publication ought to take place within three years of the first publication. And we may add, that we think the law should be the same with reference to dramatic pieces and musical compositions first performed out of Your Majesty's dominions, even though they are not printed and published;-in other words, that first performance in a foreign country should not injure the dramatic right in this country. It has been decided under the 19th section of the International Copyright Act, that the writer of a drama loses his exclusive right to the performance of his drama here in England, if it has been first performed abroad; that is to say, representation has been held to be a publication. We see no reason why the rule which may be finally determined upon in reference to first publication of books should not apply to first representation of dramatic pieces. The evidence shows how hardly the present law presses

upon

British dramatic authors.

62. As to aliens, although we would give them the same rights as British subjects if they first publish their works in the British dominions, it is obvious that the same reason does not exist for giving them copyright if they do not bring their books first to our market; and we therefore recommend that aliens, unless domiciled in Your Majesty's dominions, should only be entitled to copyright

*This recommendation has been practically carried out by s. 8 of the International Copyright Act, 1886.

for works first published in those dominions. It is to be borne in mind that, even though aliens may be deprived of British copyright by first publication abroad, they may still obtain it in many cases by means of treaties.

Persons capable of obtaining Copyright.

63. With regard to the persons who are capable of obtaining imperial copyright in Your Majesty's dominions, as distinguished from international copyright under treaty, we find that, according to the existing law, the author in order to obtain copyright must be either

(a) A natural-born or naturalized subject of Your Majesty, in which case the place of residence at the time of publication of the book is immaterial; or

(b) A person who, at the time of the publication of the book in which copyright is to be obtained, owes local or temporary allegiance to Your Majesty, by residing at that time in some part of Your Majesty's dominions.

64. Besides these it is probable, but not certain, that an alien friend who first publishes a book in the United Kingdom, even though resident out of Your Majesty's dominions, acquires copyright therein. We think this doubt should be set at rest, and that, subject to our previous recommendation as to place of publication by aliens not domiciled in Your Majesty's dominions, the benefit of the copyright laws should extend to all British subjects and aliens alike.

67. Questions frequently arise, with regard to literary works, as to what is a fair use of the works of other authors in the compilation of books. In the majority of cases these are questions that can only be decided, when they arise, by the proper legal tribunals, and no principle which we can lay down, or which could be defined by the Legislature, could govern all cases that occur. There is one form of user of the works of others, however, to which we wish specially to draw attention, as being capable of some legislative control in a direction we think desirable. We refer to abridgments.

68. At present an abridgment may or may not be an infringement of copyright, according to the use made of the original work and the extent to which the latter is merely copied into the abridgment; but even though an abridgment may be so framed as to escape being a piracy, still it is capable of doing great harm to the author of the original work by interfering with his market; and

it is the more likely to interfere with that market and injure the sale of the original work if, as is frequently the case, it bears in its title the name of the original author.*

69. We think this should be prevented, and, upon the whole we † recommend, that no abridgments of copyright works should be allowed during the term of copyright, without the consent of the owner of the copyright.

Dramatic Pieces and Musical Compositions.

70. Dramatic pieces and musical compositions, though in some respects differing, are yet so similar that we may couple them together for the purposes of this Report.

71. We have carefully considered the statute law now in force with reference to music and the drama; but from the way in which certain Acts of Parliament have been framed and incorporated by reference, considerable doubt arises in our minds on various important points connected with these subjects.

72. It may be convenient, however, before referring to them more particularly, to notice a difference that exists between books and musical and dramatic works. While in books there is only one copyright, in musical and dramatic works there are two, namely, the right of printed publication and the right of public performance.

73. These rights are essentially different and distinct, and we find that many plays and musical pieces are publicly performed without being published in the form of books, and thus the acting or dramatic copyright is in force, while as to literary copyright such plays and pieces retain the character of unpublished manuscripts. Music printed and published becomes a book for the purpose of the literary copyright, and so, we presume, does a play; but it is a question what becomes of the performing copyright on the publication of the work as a book; and there is a further question, whether the performing copyright can be gained at all, if the piece is printed and published as a book before being publicly performed.

74. With regard to the duration of copyright in dramatic pieces, and musical compositions, we recommend that both the performing right and the literary right should be the same as for books.

75. We further propose, in order to avoid the disunion between the literary and the performing rights in musical compositions and

*See Longman (Q. 269); Daldy (Q. 970); Murray (Q. 228), stating that he had published Austin on Jurisprudence, and that Mr. Longman had told him that his (Mr. Longman's) firm had had an offer of an abridgment of it. † Sir James Stephen dissented from this recommendation.

dramatic pieces, that the printed publication of such works should give dramatic or performing rights, and that public performance should give literary copyright. For a similar reason it would be desirable that the author of the words of songs, as distinguished from the music, should have no copyright in representation or publication with the music, except by special agreement.

Dramatisation of Novels.

76. With reference to the drama, our attention has been directed to a practice, now very common, of taking a novel* and turning its contents into a play for stage purposes, without the consent of the author or owner of the copyright. The same thing may be done with works of other kinds if adapted for the purpose, but inasmuch as novels are more suitable for this practice than other works, the practice has acquired the designation of dramatisation of novels. The extent to which novels may be used for this purpose varies. Stories have been written in a form adapted to stage representation almost without change; sometimes certain parts and passages of novels are put bodily into the play, while the bulk of the play is original matter; and at other times the plot of the novel is taken as the basis of a play, the dialogue being altogether original.

77. Whatever may be the precise form of the dramatisation, the practice has given rise to much complaint, and considerable loss, both in money and reputation, is alleged to have been inflicted upon novelists. The author's pecuniary injury consists in his failing to obtain the profit he might receive if dramatisation could' not take place without his consent. He may be injured in reputation if an erroneous impression is given of his book.

78. In addition to these complaints it has been pressed upon us that it is only just that an author should be entitled to the full amount of profit which he can derive from his own creation ;— that the product of a man's brain ought to be his own for all purposes; and that it is unjust, when he has expended his invention and labour in the composition of a story, that another man should be able to reap part of the harvest.

79. On the other hand, it has been argued that the principle of copyright does not prevent the free use of the ideas contained in the original work, though it protects the special form in which those ideas are embodied;—that a change in the existing law would lead to endless litigation;—and that it would work to the disadvantage both of the author and the public. Upon these grounds, or some of them, a bill, introduced by Lord Lyttleton in 1866 and supported by Lord Stanhope, was defeated.

**

e.g., Never Too Late to Mend, East Lynne, Aurora Floyd, &c.

80. We have fully considered all these points, and have come to the conclusion that the right of dramatising a novel or other work should be reserved to the author. This change would assimilate our law to that of France and the United States, where the author's right in this respect is fully protected.

81. Were this recommendation adopted, a further question would arise, as to the time during which his right should be vested in the author, and, in the event of his not choosing to dramatise his novel, whether other persons should be debarred from making use of the story he has given to the world. We are disposed to think that the right of dramatisation should be co-extensive with the copyright. It has been suggested, in the interest of the public, that a term, say of three or five years, or even more, should be allowed to the author within which he should have the sole right to dramatise his novel, and that it should be then open to anyone to dramatise it. The benefit, however, to the public in having a story represented on the stage does not appear to us to be sufficient to outweigh the convenience of making the right of dramatising uniform in its incidents with other copyright.

Lectures.

82. Lectures are peculiar in their character, and differ from books, inasmuch as, though they are made public by delivery, they have not necessarily a visible form capable of being copied. Nevertheless it has been thought right by the Legislature in recent years to afford them the protection of copyright, and, considering the valuable character of many lectures, it is our opinion that such protection should not only be continued, subject to certain changes in the law, but extended. Although lectures are not always capable of being copied, because not reduced to writing, many lectures written for the purpose of delivery are not published, and many are written that the matter of them may be preserved, or that they may be capable of delivery in the same form on other occasions. Moreover, lectures, though not put in writing by the author, may be taken down in shorthand, and thus published or re-delivered by other persons. The present Act of Parliament,* which gives copyright in lectures, seems only to contemplate one kind of copyright, namely, that of printed publication, whereas it is obvious that for their entire protection lectures require copyright of two kinds, the one to protect them from printed publication by unauthorised persons, the other to protect them from re-delivery.

83. The present law is that the author of any lecture, or his assignee, may reserve to himself the sole right of publishing it, by

* 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 65., and see "Caird v. Syme," 12 Appeal Cases, 326, in which publication of a student's notes of Professor Caird's Moral Philosophy Lectures was restrained by the House of Lords in 1887.