recording the title. An additional term of fourteen years. may be secured by the author, if he be living at the end of the first term, or by his widow or children, if he be dead.2

In England, the copyright in a book is granted for forty-two years from the time of first publication. If the author is living at the end of that period, the copyright will continue until seven years after his death. The copyright in prints, engravings, and lithographs lasts for twenty-eight years from the time of publication ; 4 in paintings, drawings, and photographs, during the life of the author, and seven years after his death; 5 and in sculpture, models, and busts, for fourteen years from first publication, and the artist, if living at the end of that period, may secure protection for an additional term of fourteen years.7

relates to books which are not entitled to copyright for the time being, in pursuance of the said reserved bill."

The Canadian copyright act is given as a schedule to 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53. See also Reserved Act, 1875, Stat. Dom. Canada, 1876, p. xvii.

1 U. S. Rev. St. s. 4953. 2 Id. s. 4954.

35 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 3. See Marzials v. Gibbons, Law Rep. 9 Ch. 518,

as to the construction of section 4, which provides for the extension of the copyright in works published when the statute was passed.

47 Geo. III. c. 38, s. 7. The provisions of the acts relating to prints and engravings were extended to lithographs by 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12, s. 14. 525 & 26 Vict. c. 68, s, 1. 6 54 Geo. III. c. 56, s. 1. 7 Id. s. 6.

CHAPTER VI.

TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT.

GREAT BRITAIN.

By Registration. In England, the statute provides for the transfer of copyright in books by registration, but does not require it to be done in this way. Section 13 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, after providing for the registration of books in the registry of the Stationers' Company by the owners of the copyright, enacts"that it shall be lawful for every such registered proprietor to assign his interest, or any portion of his interest therein, by making entry in the said book of registry of such assignment, and of the name and place of abode of the assignee thereof, in the form given in that behalf in the said schedule, on payment of the like sum [five shillings]; and such assignment so entered shall be effectual in law to all intents and purposes whatsoever, without being subject to any stamp or duty, and shall be of the same force and effect as if such assignment had been made by deed." The entry is made on the application of the assignor, and sets forth the date of entry, title of the book, name of the assignor, and name and place of abode of the assignee. The statute makes a certified copy of the entry prima facie proof of assignment, "but subject to be rebutted by other evidence." 1

This mode of transfer appears to be available only to a "registered proprietor" of the copyright. It does not, therefore, apply to transfers made before the original entry of copyright. In case the assignment has been made before publication, the assignee as owner would properly make the original entry.

1 S. 11. See Low v. Routledge, 33 8 Id. 223; Graves's Case, Law Rep. L. J. N. s. (Ch.) 717, 723; Low v. 4 Q. B. 715; Boosey v. Fairlie, 7 Ch. Ward, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 415; Wood v. D. 801.

Boosey, Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 340, on ap.

By Bequest and in Case of Intestacy. The act further provides for the transmission of copyright in case of the death of the owner. Section 25 declares "that all copyright shall be deemed personal property, and shall be transmissible by bequest, or, in case of intestacy, shall be subject to the same law of distribution as other personal property, and in Scotland shall be deemed to be personal and moveable estate."

MUST ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT BE IN WRITING?

As registration is a mode of transfer optional with the parties thereto, it becomes necessary to inquire in what other manner the ownership of copyright may be passed from one person to another. The law on this point cannot be properly determined without a critical examination of the leading decisions on the subject, nor without carefully considering each with strict reference to the governing statute. It is necessary to divide the authorities into two classes, and treat each class separately: 1, those in which the decision was governed by a statute in force prior to that of Victoria; 2, those wherein the question was controlled by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.

Judicial Construction of Former Statutes. Writing but not Attestation held to be Necessary. - Every statute before that passed in the reign of Victoria was silent as to the mode of transferring the copyright in a book. Hence, it was left to the courts to determine the requisites of an assignment. It appears that before 1814 the chancery courts assumed that copyright might be transferred by parol.1 The question was first raised in Power v. Walker, decided in that year, under 8 Anne, c. 19, which imposed penalties on any person who should print or import a copyrighted book" without the consent of the proprietor or proprietors thereof first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses." 2 The plaintiff, whose title had been derived by parol, brought an action for piracy against the defendant, who pleaded the absence of a written assignment

1 "It is settled now," said Lord Eldon, "that an assignment of copyright must be in writing, although it frequently happened that courts of equity had granted injunctions at the

suit of persons claiming under assignments not in writing, until we were set right by a decision of the Court of King's Bench." Rundell v. Murray, Jac. 314.

2

s. 1.

from the author to the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough ruled that "the statute having required that the consent of the proprietor, in order to authorize the printing or reprinting of any book by any other person, shall be in writing, the conclusion from it seemed almost irresistible that the assignment must also be in writing; for if the license, which is the lesser thing, must be in writing, a fortiori the assignment, which is the greater thing, must also be."1

This reasoning was carried to its logical conclusion in Davidson v. Bohn, decided in 1848, when the court declared that, as a consent in writing signed by two witnesses was necessary to a license, an assignment to be valid must likewise be in writing and attested by two witnesses. A written assignment with one witness was therefore held to be invalid. The question came before the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey in 1854, when a majority of the judges were of opinion that a written assignment without witnesses was good. It was considered. that the necessity for attestation, if any existed under the statute of Anne, had been removed by the 54 Geo. III. c. 156, passed in 1814, which made the owner's consent in writing necessary to a license to publish, but contained no mention of witnesses. In the Scotch case of Jeffreys v. Kyle, which will be more fully considered further on, it was also held that after the 54 Geo. III. c. 156, attestation was not necessary to a valid assignment.4

In Shepherd v. Conquest, the Court of Common Pleas, applying the reasoning of Lord Ellenborough to the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, held that an assignment conveying the exclusive right of performing a play must be in writing; and the plaintiff failed because he claimed by a parol title.5

13 Maule & S. 9.

26 C. B. 456.

$ 4 H. L. C. 815.

18 Sc. Sess. Cas. 2d ser. 906. Affirmed by House of Lords, Kyle v. Jeffreys, 3 Macq. 611.

Leonards and Baron Alderson were of opinion that the license clause in the statute of Anne had not been repealed by the 54 Geo. III. c. 156, s. 4, since the provisions of both acts as to license might stand together; and they Davidson v. Bohn appears to have regarded the law as settled by Power been decided under 8 Anne, c. 19. v. Walker and Davidson v. Bohn, that Although the case was tried many a valid assignment must be in writing, years after the passing of 54 Geo. III. and attested by two witnesses. 4 H. L. c. 156, no reference was made to this C. 994-996, 915. statute.

5 17 C. B. 427. See also Barnett v.

In Jefferys v. Boosey, Lord St. Glossop, 3 Dow. Pr. Cas. 625.

In the following case of Cumberland v. Copeland, the plaintiff, to whom the author had assigned a play by a writing attested by one witness, brought an action under 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, against the defendant, for representing the piece without authority. The Court of Exchequer, declaring that they were bound by Power v. Walker and Davidson v. Bohn, held the plaintiff's title to be bad for want of an assignment attested by two witnesses. But this judgment was reversed by the Exchequer Chamber, which unanimously held that an assignment in writing, without witnesses, was good.2

In Cumberland v. Copeland as well as in Jefferys v. Boosey, the assignment was shown to have been in writing, but without witnesses. The point decided was that a written assignment, though not attested, is valid. The question whether a writing is necessary was not before the court.

The doctrine affirmed in Power v. Walker has been recognized in several other cases than those here reviewed. But in most, if not all, of them the question was so involved with other issues that the decisions did not turn directly on this point.3

The leading authorities relating to the construction of the statutes in force before the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, have now been reviewed. Their result is, that, before the present statute was passed, copyright could not be assigned by parol, but only by an instrument in writing, to which no attestation was required after 54 Geo. III. c. 156, became a law.

THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED THAT ASSIGNMENTS NEED NOT BE IN WRITING UNDER ENGLISH STATUTES.

Former

Statutes Considered.

I shall now try to show that, independently of the statute of Victoria, the doctrine affirmed by the English courts is not sound, and that the

17 Hurl. & N. 118.

21 Hurl. & C. 194. See also Marsh v. Conquest, 17 C. B. n. s. 418, where it was held that the assignment need not be by deed.

3 See Latour v. Bland, 2 Stark. 382; Morris v. Kelly, 1 Jac. & W. 461; Run

dell v. Murray, Jac. 311; Clementi v. Walker, 2 Barn & Cr. 861; Barnett v. Glossop, 3 Dow. Pr. Cas. 625; De Pinna v. Polhill, 8 Car. & P. 78; Colburn v. Duncombe, 9 Sim. 151; Hodges v. Welsh, 2 Ir. Eq. 266; Chappell v. Purday, 4 Y. & C. Exch. 485.